Full text of "A study of British genius"

See other formats

^ 2 60.

THE

CHARLES MYERS
LIBRARY

Spearman

Collection

NATIONAL INSTITUTE
OF

INDUSTRIAL

PSYCHOLOGY

- «

-■ • ■ Y

■

II I r ; I

/ i-imvvm; no,,!., ,, , ,

, . I U i IT, 1,1 '

; \ixuuiiviv; w jAn,i.

^ HA.ii uu

' ‘I'M ii;*Y'. ;

Um-iunuiuauti"1'

Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2019 with funding from
Wellcome Library

https://archive.org/details/b31360944

A STUDY OF
BRITISH GENIUS

BY THE SAME AUTHOR

THE CRIMINAL. Revised and enlarged edition.

MAN AND WOMAN. Revised and enlarged edition.
STUDIES IN THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SEX.

Vols. I.— III.

THE NEW SPIRIT.

AFFIRMATIONS.

THE NINETEENTH CENTURY: A Dialogue in

Utopia.

A STUDY OF

BRITISH GENIUS

Havelock Ellis

LONDON

HURST AND BLACKETT, LIMITED

13, Great Marlborough Street, W.

1904

i qoh

PREFACE.

For many years past material has been growing under
my hands bearing on the psychological and anthropolo¬
gical characters of genius, and from time to time I have
examined these data and reached certain, more or less
secure, conclusions. These conclusions, together with a
summary of the material on which they are founded, I
hope to set forth in a series of volumes. In the meanwhile,
however, I am absorbed in another task, which will yet
take some years to complete, and since life is short I have
thought it well not to delay longer the publication of the
first of my studies of genius. It deals with a subject which
can scarcely fail to be of interest to most of us, even apart
from the biological questions involved, and, as it stands, it
seems to illustrate by a single concrete example of the first
importance — the genius of Great Britain — many of the
special characteristics of genius generally.

In the past the phenomena of genius have mostly been
approached from two distinct standpoints. In the first
place they were dealt with by alienists who, being impressed
by the fact that certain men of eminent genius had pre-

Vlll

PREFACE

sented symptoms which may properly be termed insane,
became unduly inclined to attribute insanity to the mani¬
festations of genius generally. On the other hand the
subject has more recently been taken up by anthropologists
who have ignored altogether the psychiatric, and even for
the most part the psychological, aspects of genius. Mr.
Galton is the earliest and the most distinguished exponent
of this highly important aspect of the study of genius. In
the Prefatory Chapter to the second edition (1892) of
Hereditary Genius Mr. Galton has admitted that it is not
the only aspect, stating that some place must be given to
the study of genius as a mental anomaly, an “inborn
excitability and peculiarity.”

My own attempt to investigate the phenomena of genius
may be said to start from the point where Mr. Gabon’s left
off (though my standpoint was reached some years before
1892). My method of approaching the group corresponds,
so far as the data allow, with that which in France Dr.
Toulouse has recently adopted so brilliantly and thoroughly
(notably in his study of Zola) in approaching the individual
man of genius. From the purely psychiatric standpoint,
from the purely anthropological standpoint, it is alike
impossible to interpret the phenomena of genius adequately.
The methods which are instructive in the lunatic asylum,
or those other methods (such as under Dr. Haddon’s
initiating influence have been carried out by Dr. Browne in
the islands of the west of 'Ireland) which prove fruitful in

PREFACE.

isolated communities of the normal population are here
both out of place. In a study of genius which is biological
in the widest sense of that term, we must ascertain alike
the psychological data and the anthropological data,
normal and abnormal, and seek to balance them steadily,
without swerving unduly either to the right hand or to the
left.

The plan of the present book is simple. The bulk of the
volume is taken up with the succinct co-ordination and
summation of the data before us, all introduction of foreign
matter which might unduly overweight the conclusions at
any point being strictly excluded. In small type are
inserted the results obtained by previous investigators on
somewhat similar bodies of data, together with the results
obtained by the study of other mentally abnormal groups ;
these results are often of the highest significance in
enabling us to interpret our conclusions. In the Appen¬
dices I have brought together some of the elementary facts
on which I have worked ; the reader is thus enabled to
examine and check my methods for himself ; he will also,
I hope, be able at many points to correct or amplify the
original data.

I had purposed to represent the results of this study
graphically by means of curves. On consideration, how¬
ever, it seemed that such a method was unsuited to the
nature of the data, and might tend to mislead the reader.
For most of the groups of facts here dealt with the data

PREFACE.

are necessarily incomplete, and although a more thorough
sifting of the sources would certainly yield further facts,
they would in the end still remain incomplete. It is unde¬
sirable to give an air of precision to data which we have
indeed good reason to consider approximately correct, but
which at the same time do not enable us to reach the
exact composition of the whole of the groups we are
dealing with.

HAVELOCK ELLIS.

Carbis Water , Lei ant, Cornwall.

CONTENTS.

INTRODUCTORY.

The problem to be investigated — The method of investigation — The
Dictionary of National Biography — The principle ruling the selec¬
tion of names — Cattell’s method of selection — Reasons for the
principles here adopted — Proportion of eminent women to eminent
men — The distribution of intellectual ability in the various cen¬
turies — The biological data with which the present inquiry is chiefly
concerned — Fallacies to be avoided ......

II.

NATIONALITY AND RACE.

PAGK

Xll

CONTENTS.

PAGE

istics of East Anglian genius — The characteristics of the south-west
focus — The characteristics of the Welsh Border — The significance
of the position of Kent — The distribution of genius in Wales — The
distribution of genius in Scotland — The distribution of genius in
Ireland — The regional distribution of various kinds of ability —

The distribution of scientific ability — The regional variations of
scientific aptitude — 'The distribution of eminent soldiers — The dis¬
tribution of eminent sailors — The distribution of artists — The dis¬
tribution of dramatic ability — The possible modification of racial
factors by environmental conditions . 20

III.

SOCIAL CLASS.

Status of parents of British men of genius — Upper class — Yeomen and
farmers — Clergy — Medicine — Law — Army — Navy — Miscellaneous
professions — Commercial classes — Crafts — Artisans and unskilled
— The parentage of artists — The parentage of actors — How far
change has taken place in the social composition of the genius-
producing class — Comparison of the genius-producing class with
the ordinary population ........

IV.

HEREDITY AND PARENTAGE.

The tendency to heredity in intellectual ability — Inheritance of ability
equally frequent through father and mother — Mental abnormality
in the parents — Size of the families to which persons of eminent
ability belong — Normal standards of comparison — Genius-producing
families tend to be large — Men of ability tend to be the offspring
of predominantly boy-producing parents — Women of ability appar¬
ently tend to belong to girl-producing parents — Position in the
family of the child of genius — Tendency of men of ability to be
youngest and more especially eldest children — The age of the parents
of eminent persons at their birth — Tendency to disparity of age in
the parents .

CONTENTS.

CHILDHOOD AND YOUTH.

PAGE

The frequency of constitutional delicacy in infancy and childhood —
Tendency of those who were weak in infancy to become robust
later — The prevalence of precocity — University education — The
frequency of prolonged residence abroad in early life . . . 133

VI.

MARRIAGE AND FAMILY.

Celibacy — Average age at marriage — Tendency to marry late — Age of
eminent women at marriage — Apparently a greater tendency to
celibacy among persons of ability than among the ordinary popu¬
lation — Marriage — Fertility and sterility alike pronounced —
Average size of families — Proportion of children of each sex . . 152

VII.

DURATION OF LIFE.

The fallacy involved in estimating the longevity of eminent men — The

real bearing of the data — Mortality at different ages . . • I7I

VIII.

PATHOLOGY.

Relative ill-health — Consumption — The psychology of consumption —

Gout — Its extreme frequency in men of ability — The possible
reasons for the association between gout and ability — Other uric
acid diseases — Asthma and angina pectoris — Insanity — The question
of its significance — Apparent rarity of grave nervous diseases —
Frequency of minor nervous disorders — Stammering — Its signifi¬
cance — High-pitched voice — Spasmodic movements — Illegible
handwriting — Short sight — Awkwardness of movement . . .17 7

IX.

STATURE.

Nature of the data — Tendency of British men of ability to vary from the
average in the direction of short and more especially of tall stature
— Apparent deficiency of the medium -sized ..... 204

XIV

CONTENTS.

PIGMENTATION.

Hair and eye-colour — Method of classification — Sources of data — The
index of pigmentation — Its marked variation in the different
intellectual groups — Some probable causes for this variation .

XI.

OTHER CHARACTERISTICS.

Personal beauty or the reverse — The eyes — Shyness and timidity—
Tendency to melancholy — Persecution by the world

XII.

CONCLUSIONS.

The characteristics of men of genius probably to a large extent indepen¬
dent of the particular field their ability is shown in — What is the
“temperament” of genius? — In what sense genius is healthy —
The probable basis of inaptitude for ordinary life — In what sense
genius is a neurosis .........

APPENDICES.

List of Eminent Persons of Ability .
Origins of British Persons of Ability
Occupation or Social Position of Fathers
Stature .... ...

Pigmentation . .

PAGE

209

217

224

237

252

281

290

292

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

INTRODUCTORY.

The problem to be investigated — The method of investigation — The Dic¬
tionary of National Biography — The principles ruling the selection of
names — Cattell’s method of selection — Reasons for the principles here
adopted — Proportion of eminent women to eminent men — The distribution
of intellectual ability in the various centuries — The biological data with
which the present inquiry is chiefly concerned — Fallacies to be avoided.

Until now it has not been possible to obtain any
comprehensive view of the men and women who
have chiefly built up English civilization. It has
not, therefore, been possible to study their per¬
sonal characteristics as a group. The sixty-six
volumes of the Dictionary of National Biography
have for the first time enabled us to construct
an authoritative and well-balanced scheme of the
persons of illustrious genius, in every department,
who have appeared in the British Isles from the
beginning of history down to the end of the nine-

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

teenth century ; and, with a certain amount of
labour, they assist us to sum up their main traits.
It has seemed to me worth while, — both for the
sake of ascertaining the composition of those
elements of intellectual ability which Great Britain
has contributed to the world, and also as a study
of the nature of genius generally, — to utilize the
Dictionary to work out these traits. I propose
to present here some of the main conclusions
which emerge from such a study.

The Dictionary contains some record, — from a
few lines to several dozen pages, — of some thirty
thousand persons. Now, this is an impracticable
and undesirable number to deal with — imprac¬
ticable because, regarding a large proportion of
these persons, very little is here recorded or is
even known ; undesirable because it must be
admitted that the majority, though persons of
a certain note in their own day or their own circle,
cannot be said to have made any remarkable
contribution to civilization or to have displayed
any very transcendent degree of native ability.
My first task, therefore, was to discover a prin¬
ciple of selection in accordance with which the
persons of relatively less distinguished ability and
achievement might be eliminated. At the out¬
set one class of individuals, it was fairly obvious,
should be omitted altogether in the construction

INTRODUCTORY.

of any group in which the qualities of native
intellectual ability are essential : royalty, and
members of the royal family, as well as the heredi¬
tary nobility. Those eminent persons, the sons
of commoners, who have founded noble families,
are, of course, not excluded by this rule, according
to which any eminent person whose father, at the
time of his birth, had attained the rank of baronet
or any higher rank, is necessarily excluded from
my list. Certainly the son of a king or a peer
may possess a high degree of native ability, but
it is practically impossible to estimate how far
that ability would have carried him had he been
the son of an ordinary citizen ; it might be main¬
tained that a successful merchant, ship-owner,
schoolmaster or tradesman requires as much
sagacity and mental alertness as even the most
successful sovereign ; by eliminating those indi¬
viduals in whom the accident of birth counts for
so much, we put this insoluble question out of
court. I am surprised to find how few persons
of obviously pre-eminent ability are excluded
by this rule, and many whom, at first, one
would imagine it excludes, it really allows to
pass, especially in the case of sons born before
the father was created a peer. In order to avoid
any scandalous omissions, I have thought it well
to rule in all those sons of peers whose ability

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

has clearly been of a kind which could not be
aided by position and influence ; thus I have
included the third Earl of Shaftesbury, for it
cannot be held that the possession of an earldom
tends to aid a man in becoming a philosopher.
It has, however, very rarely indeed been necessary
to accord this privilege ; I have always refrained
from according it in the case of soldiers and
statesmen.

Having eliminated those whose position in the
world has clearly been influenced by the accident
of birth, it remained to eliminate those whose
place in the world, as well as in the Dictionary ,
was comparatively small. After some considera¬
tion I decided that, generally speaking, those
persons to whom less than three pages were allotted
were evidently not regarded by the editors, and
could scarcely be generally regarded, as of the
first rank of eminence. Accordingly, I excluded
all those individuals to whom less than that
amount of space was devoted. When this was
done, however, I found it necessary to go through
the Dictionary again, treating this rule in a some¬
what more liberal manner. I had so far obtained
some 700 names, but I had excluded many per¬
sons of undoubtedly very eminent ability and
achievement; Hutton, the geologist, and Jane
Austen, the novelist, for instance, could scarcely

INTRODUCTORY.

be omitted from a study of British genius. It
was evident that persons with eventful lives had
a better chance of occupying much space than
other persons of equal ability with uneventful lives.
Moreover, I found that a somewhat rigid adherence
to the rule I had laid down had sometimes resulted
in groups that were too small and too ill-balanced
to be useful for study. In the case of musical
composers, for instance, while those of recent times,
of whom much is known, bulk largely in the
Dictionary , the earlier musicians, of whom little is
known, though their eminence is much greater,
were excluded from my list. On the other hand,
a certain number of persons had been included
because, though of quite ordinary ability (like
Bradshaw, the regicide), they happened by acci¬
dent to have played a considerable part in history.
In going through the Dictionary a second time,
therefore, I modified my list in accordance with
a new rule, to the effect that biographies occupy¬
ing less than three pages should be included if
the writers seemed to consider that their subjects
had shown intellectual ability of a high order, and
that those occupying more space should be ex¬
cluded if the writers considered that their sub¬
jects displayed no high intellectual ability. In
this way I eliminated those persons who rank
chiefty as villains (like Titus Oates), and have

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

little claim to the possession of any eminent
degree of intellectual ability. I likewise felt
compelled to exclude women (like Lady Hamil¬
ton) whose fame is not due to intellectual ability,
but to beauty and to connection with eminent
persons. I also omitted one or two persons for
the reason that, although their claim to inclusion
was unimpeachable, we are not in possession of
a single definite biographical fact concerning
them ; from the present point of view they would
merely cumber the ground.

So far as possible, it will be seen, I have sought
to subordinate my own private judgment in
making the selection. It has been my object to
place the list, so far as possible, on an objective
basis. At the same time, it is evident that, while
I only reserved to myself a casting vote on doubt¬
ful points, there was inevitably a certain propor¬
tion of cases where this personal vote had to be
given. A purely mechanical method of making
selections would necessarily lead to various ab¬
surdities, and all that I can claim is that the
principles of selection I adopted have involved
a minimum of interference on my part. It is
certainly true that, even after much consideration
and repeated revision, I remain myself still in
doubt regarding a certain proportion of people
included in my list and a certain proportion

INTRODUCTORY.

omitted. Indeed any reader who finds on going
through my list that there are certain omitted
names which most certainly ought to have been
included, and certain included names which might
well be omitted, will have reached precisely the
conclusion which I have myself reached. How¬
ever often I went through the Dictionary , I know
that I should each time make a few trifling re¬
adjustments, and any one else who took the
trouble to go over the ground I have traversed
would likewise wish to make readjustments. But
I am convinced that if my principles of selection
are accepted, the margin for such readjustment
is narrow.

It will be observed that, by means of a slightly
complicated and so far as possible objective
method of selection, I have not merely sought
to include only individuals of a very high order
of intellectual ability, but have at the same time
sought to avoid, so far as possible, the omission
of others who may have an equal claim to inclu¬
sion on account of their possession of a high degree
of intellectual ability. It will at the same time
be observed that I do not claim to be absolutely
successful either as regards the inclusions or the
omissions. I must hasten to add that any
failure here very slightly impairs the primary
object of this study. It has not been my main

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

object to attain a final list to date of those
British men and women who have shown the
highest degree of intellectual ability. I wished
to ascertain some of the biological characteristics
— anthropological and psychological — of persons
of the highest intellectual ability produced by
Great Britain. For this purpose it was essential
that the list should be carefully and impartially
obtained ; it was not essential that it should be
faultless, although that was the ideal I set before
myself.

There is some interest in comparing my list with an¬
other list, prepared by Professor Cattell, of the 1,000
most eminent men that have appeared in the world
generally (J. McKeen Cattell, “A Statistical Study of
Eminent Men,” Popular Science Monthly , Feb., 1903).
Professor Cattell, in constructing the list, adhered
rigidly to the very simple and mechanical method of
selection which I had at first proposed to follow, but, as
has been above explained, found it desirable in some
degree to modify by the adoption of additional rules of
selection. He took six biographical dictionaries — Eng¬
lish, French, German, and American — and, reducing space
t°I at common standard, selected the 1,000 persons who
were allowed the greatest average space, inclusion in
at least three of the dictionaries being regarded as an
essential condition. The list was thus, so far as Professor
Cattell was concerned, absolutely objective.

Of Professor Cattell’s 1,000 most eminent persons, 243,
or nearly a quarter, appear to be British or to have

INTRODUCTORY.

flourished in Great Britain. Of these as many as at
least 60 are not found in my list. (As the names in
Professor Cattell’s list appear without dates, the identifi¬
cation is not always quite certain.) Of these 60, 33 were
excluded from my list as royal personages, and 20 as
belonging to the hereditary aristocracy. There remain
7 who, since they thus figure among the 1,000 most
eminent persons who ever lived, ought surely to appear
in my longer list of purely British persons. One, Jeffreys,
was excluded because, although he may not have been
without legal ability, the space which he occupies in the
minds of men is not due to his ability, but to the scandal
which he caused ; he lives rather as a bad man than as
a man of genius. In a somewhat similar manner, Mac-
pherson, who appears in Professor Cattell’s list but not
in mine, was excluded because, although he occupies
an important position in literary history, his contribu¬
tions to literature have their main value from the
traditions they embody ; he is an insignificant character
who accidently aroused great controversies, and showed
little or no ability in his undoubtedly original literary
work. Another, Thomas Brown, is a metaphysician,
who, at all events in the Dictionary , is regarded as of
little importance. Another, Robert Hall, was a Baptist
preacher who left a reputation for pulpit oratory. The
remaining three — Arbuthnot, Armstrong, and Akenside —
are minor literary men whose productions are now
unread, though it is possible that one, Armstrong,
is undeservedly neglected. I do not consider that the
exclusion of these seven persons reveals a very serious
defect in my list, even though it may well be that a few
individuals have found their way into my list who showed
intellectual ability that was of but little higher order.

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

An examination of Professor Cattell’s list suffices to
show how extremely difficult it is to obtain a reliable
estimate of intellectual eminence on a simple objective
basis. A test which places Napoleon III. as the eleventh
greatest man that ever lived — before Homer, Newton,
and Alexander the Great — and includes some unread
minor poets, while it excludes Gilbert, “ the father
of experimental science,” is scarcely satisfactory. It
is certainly better than a subjective method, but its
results seem to justify such an attempt as I have made,
however imperfectly, to adopt a more complexly objective
method of selection.

In the final result my selection yields 975
British men of a high degree of intellectual emi¬
nence. The eminent women number 55, being
in proportion to the men about 1 to 18.

A slightly lower standard of ability, it would
appear, prevails among the women than among
the men. On account of the greater rarity of
intellectual ability in women, they have often
played a large part in the world on the strength
of achievements which would not have allowed a
man to play a similarly large part. It seemed,
again, impossible to exclude various women of
powerful and influential personality, though
their achievements were not always consider¬
able. I allude to such persons as Hannah More
and Mrs. Montague. Even Mrs. Somerville, the
only feminine representative of science in my

INTRODUCTORY.

list, could scarcely be included were she not a
woman, for she was little more than the accom¬
plished popularizer of scientific results. In one
department, and one only, the women seem to
be little, if at all, inferior to the men in ability,
that is in acting.

Professor Cattell finds the proportion of women in his
list of the most eminent persons of history generally to
be 3.2 per cent., while in my British list it is higher,
being 5.3 per cent. This is a difference which might have
been anticipated, since my list refers only to post-classical
times, includes persons of a lower degree of eminence,
and is concerned with a people among whom the conditions
have possibly been more than usually favourable to the
development of ability in women.

It may be asked how these 1,030 persons of
pre-eminent intellectual ability have been dis¬
tributed through the course of English history.
I find that from the fourth to the tenth centuries,
inclusive, there are only 11 men of sufficient dis¬
tinction to appear in my lists, nearly half of these
belonging to the seventh century. From that
date onwards (reckoning by the date of birth) we
find that the eleventh century yields 5, the
twelfth yields 11, the thirteenth 9, the fourteenth
16, the fifteenth 32, the sixteenth 161, the seven¬
teenth 191, the eighteenth 372, the nineteenth
223. It is probable that the estimate most nearly

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

corresponds to the actual facts as regards the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Before
that time our information is too scanty, so
that many men of notable ability have passed
away without record. In the nineteenth century,
on the other hand, the material has been too
copious, and the national biographers have prob¬
ably tended to become unduly appreciative of
every faint manifestation of intellectual ability.
The extraordinary productiveness of the eigh¬
teenth century is very remarkable. In order to
realize the significance of the facts, however, a
century is too long a period. Distributing our
persons of genius into half-century periods, I find
that the following groups are formed :

1101-1150

1151-1200

1201-1250

1251-1300

1301-1350

1351-1400

1401-1450

1451-1500

1501-1550

1551-1600

112

1601-1650

1651-1700

1701-1750

1751-1800

1801-1830

112

134

238

219

(

Only four individuals belong to the second half
of the nineteenth century. It is scarcely neces¬
sary to remark that the record for the first half

INTRODUCTORY.

of the nineteenth century is still incomplete.
Taking the experience of the previous century as
a basis, it may be estimated that some 35 per
cent, of the eminent persons belonging to the first
half of the nineteenth century are still alive.
This would raise that half-century to the first
place, but it may be pointed out that the increase
on the previous half-century would be compara¬
tively small, and also that the result must be
discounted by the inevitable tendency to over¬
estimate the men of recent times. We have to
accept the perspective by which near things look
large and remote things look small, but we must
not be duped by it.

When we bear in mind that the activities of the
individuals in each of these groups really fall,
on the whole, into the succeeding period, certain
interesting points are suggested. We note how
the waves of Humanism and Reformation, when
striking the shores of Britain, have stirred intel¬
lectual activity, and have been prolonged and
intensified in the delayed English Renaissance.
We see how this fermentation has been continued
in the political movements of the middle of the
seventeenth century, and we note the influence
of the European upheaval at the end of the
eighteenth century. The extraordinary outburst
of intellect in the second half of that century is

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

accentuated by the fact that, taking into account
all entries in the Dictionary , the gross number of
eminent men of the low standard required for
inclusion shows little increase in the eighteenth
century (5,789, as against 5,674 in the preceding
century, is the editor’s estimate) ; the increase
of ability is thus in quality rather than in quan¬
tity. It is curious to note that, throughout these
eight centuries, a marked rise in the level of in¬
tellectual ability has very frequently, though not
invariably, been preceded by a marked fall. It
is also noteworthy that in every century, from
the eleventh to the eighteenth, with the ex¬
ception of the seventeenth, the majority of its
great men have been born in the latter half ;
that is to say, that‘ the beginning of a century
tends to be marked by an outburst of genius,
which declines through the century. Omitting
the nineteenth century, 487 persons were born in
the second halves of the centuries, and only 323
in the first halves. This outburst is very dis¬
tinct at the beginning of the nineteenth century,
and, as we have seen reason to believe, it was
probably succeeded by an arrest, if not a decline,
in the production of genius. It would seem that
we are here in the presence of two factors : a
spontaneous rhythmical rise and fall in the pro¬
duction of genius, so that a period of what is

INTRODUCTORY.

improperly called “ decadence ” is followed by
one of expansive activity ; and also, at the same
time, the stimulating influence of great historical
events, calling out latent intellectual energy.
These considerations, however, are merely specu¬
lative, and it is sufficient to accord them this
brief passing notice.

It is noteworthy that the progress of European ability
generally, as illustrated by Professor Cattell’s results,
has followed very much the same curve as I have found
in the case of British genius. “ Following the extra¬
ordinary development of the two nations of antiquity,”
Professor Cattell writes, summarising his own diagrams,
“ we have a decline, not sudden, .... but the
light fails towards the fifth century. The curve shows
a rise towards the tenth century, increasing in rapidity
as it proceeds. There are three noticeable breaks.
Thus in the fourteenth century there was a pause fol¬
lowed by a gradual improvement and an extraordinary

fruition at the end of the fifteenth century .

There was a pause in progress until a century later.

. . . . The latter part of the seventeenth century

was a sterile period, followed by a revival culminating
in the French revolution.” For Europe generally, as
for Great Britain, the latter half of the eighteenth cen¬
tury represents the unquestionable climax of genius,
238 individuals belonging to the eighteenth century
altogether as against less than one hundred for the
previous century. Professor Cattell’s curve also shows
the same general tendency for genius to become produc¬
tive towards the end of each century, with the same very

1 6

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

marked exception in the case of the seventeenth century,
the fall here, Pofessor Cattell finds, extending to nearly
every department of intellectual ability. In England we
might have been tempted to attribute the fall to the
social disturbance caused by the Civil Wars, but since
it was a general European phenomenon (except in Ger¬
many, where the eighteenth century expansion began
earliest) this is impossible ; it represents a period of
rest between the unparalleled activity of the late six¬
teenth and early seventeenth century, and the still
more unexampled intellectual energy of the eighteenth
century.

When the list of eminent persons had at last
been completed my task had still scarcely begun.
It was my object to obtain as large a mass as
possible of biological data — anthropological and
psychological — so that I could deal with these
persons of eminent intellectual ability as a human
group and compare them with other human
groups, normal and abnormal. I had, somewhat
too innocently, assumed that the national biog¬
raphers would usually be able to furnish the
elementary data I required, whenever such data
were extant. I soon realised, however, that the
biographers were, with a few notable exceptions,
literary men, unfamiliar with biological methods,
and that they had seldom realised that biography
is not a purely literary recreation, and that it
demands something more than purely literary

INTRODUCTORY.

aptitudes. Method was, for the most part, con¬
spicuously absent ; if, for instance, one wished to
know if an eminent man had or had not been
married, it was frequently necessary to read
through the whole article to make sure that one
had not missed a reference to this point ; when
found, one was still left frequently in doubt as
to whether or not there had been offspring of the
marriage, and when no reference to marriage
could be found one was left in doubt as to whether
this meant that there had been no marriage, or that
the point was unknown, or simply that the bio¬
grapher had forgotten to refer to the matter.
This failure of precision in regard to so elemen¬
tary a biographical fact introduced into the con¬
sideration of a very important matter a margin
of error which I have had much difficulty in
controlling, and it still remains considerable.
Again, much trouble has been caused by the
persistent vagueness of the biographers in des¬
cribing the eminent man’s position in his father’s
family. There is distinct interest in knowing the
size of the family from which the great man
sprang and his precise position in that family ;
but the biographers, in possibly the majority of
cases, use such expressions as “ eldest son,”
“ second son,” “ youngest son,” which tell us
almost nothing. A brief personal description of

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

the eminent man, once more, is always very in¬
structive for biological purposes, and when the
great man lived several centuries ago the bio¬
grapher is usually careful to reproduce any scrap
of information bearing on this point. But
no such care is shown in the case of the
more modern persons concerning whom the in¬
formation obtainable is still copious, and even
when the biographer has personally known his
subject he omits, almost as a rule, to give any
information regarding his personal appearance.
These and the like imperfections might easily have
been avoided, and the value of the Dictionary
immensely increased, had the editors adopted
the fairly obvious device of issuing a few simple
instructions to their fellow-workers on the ques¬
tion of method.

The greatest part of my labour has been due
to these defects of the Dictionary of National
Biography in respect of those biological data
which necessarily form the central and most
essential part of biography. In order to supple¬
ment the information furnished by the Dictionary
I have consulted over three hundred biographies,
as well as many other sources of information in
memoirs, personal reminiscences, etc. In regard
to some of the more recent persons included I
have been able to fill in various facts from my

INTRODUCTORY.

own knowledge. As concerns eye and hair colour
I have made a systematic examination of several
picture galleries, more especially the National
Portrait Gallery.

Having thus explained the nature of the data
with which we have to deal, and the methods
by which it has been obtained, we may now pro¬
ceed, without further explanations, to investigate
it. We have to study the chief biological charac¬
teristics — anthropological and psychological — of
the most eminent British men and women of
genius, here using that word merely to signify
high intellectual ability.

NATIONALITY AND RACE.

The determination of place of origin — Birthplaces of grandparents the best
available criteria — Relative productiveness in genius of England, Wales,
Scotland and Ireland — The group of mixed British origin — The group of
mixed British and foreign origin — Importance of the French element —
Origins of eminent British women — The distribution of English genius
according to counties — The genius of Kent — The regional distribution of
English women of ability — The probable predominance of Norfolk and
Suffolk in relative amount of ability — The three great foci of English
genius — The East Anglian focus — The apparent poverty of London in
aboriginal genius — The south-western focus — The Welsh Border — The
Anglo-Danish district — The psychological characteristics of East Anglian
genius — The characteristics of the South-western focus — The characteristics
of the Welsh Border — The significance of the position of Kent — The distri¬
bution of genius in Wales — The distribution of genius in Scotland — The
distribution of genius in Ireland — The regional distribution of various
kinds of ability — The distribution of scientific ability — The regional
variations of scientific aptitude — The distribution of eminent soldiers — The
distribution of eminent sailors — The distribution of artists — The distribu¬
tion of dramatic ability — The possible modification of racial factors by
environmental conditions.

It is scarcely necessary to remark that nation¬
ality and race, when used as distinguishing marks
of people who all belong to the British Islands,
are not identical terms and are both vague.

NATIONALITY AND RACE.

The races — however we may describe them* —
constituting the people of Great Britain are to
be found in all the main divisions of the two
islands, and the fact that a man is English or
Scotch or Irish tells us nothing positive as to his
race. Some indication of race, however, is in
many cases furnished if we know the particular
district to which a man’s ancestors belonged, and
this indication is further strengthened if we can
ascertain his physical type.

In determining on a large scale the place of
origin of men of genius the usual method hitherto
ha,s been to adopt the crude plan of noting the
birthplace. I have so far as possible discarded
this method, for a man’s birthplace obviously
tells us nothing decisive as to his real place of
origin.

It has seemed to me that a man’s place of
origin can most accurately be determined by
considering the districts to which his four grand¬
parents belonged. If we know this we know
with considerable certainty in what parts of the
country he is really rooted, and in many cases
we can thus form an estimate of his probable
race. I have expended a very considerable
amount of time and trouble over this part of

* For an admirable and lucid summary of the present position of this
question, see Ripley’s Races of Europe , ch. xii.

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

my enquiry ; yet so vague, confused, or con¬
flicting is often the available evidence that pro¬
bably none of my groups of data contain so many
slight inaccuracies as this. It is only in a very
small proportion of cases (even when the infor¬
mation derived from the Dictionary is supple¬
mented) that I have been able to determine the
origins of all four grandparents ; I have usually
considered myself fortunate when I have been
able to tell where the father and mother came
from, and have often been well content merely
to find out where the father came from. Only
in a few cases have I admitted the evidence of
birthplace.* London as a birthplace has been
ignored altogether. When the facts are avail¬
able it is nearly always found that the parents
had migrated to London ; we may reasonably
assume that this is probably the case when the
facts are not available. It very rarely occurs (as
in the case of J. Bentham) that even one grand¬
parent belonged to London.

In order to represent the varying values of this
evidence, I have adopted a system of marks. If
the four grandparents are of known origin, an
eminent man is entitled to four marks, these

* This evidence varies in value ; in the case of an eminent person whose
father was a farmer it is fairly acceptable ; but if the father was a clergyman
it has little or no value.

NATIONALITY AND RACE.

marks being divided among the counties to which
he belongs ; when the evidence is less explicit
the marks are correspondingly diminished. By
this method I am able to give due weight to the
very numerous cases in which the parents (or
grandparents) belonged to different parts of the
kingdom.

Every one of the 1,030 persons included in
this inquiry may be definitely classed, with at
all events a fair degree of probability, in one part
or another of the British Islands. When this is
done we obtain the following results :

English . 659

Welsh ....
Scotch

Irish ....

Mixed British

Mixed British and Foreign

137

Omitting for the moment the individuals of
mixed ancestry, we find that 74.2 per cent, are
English, 3.1 Welsh, 15.4 Scotch and 7.1 Irish.
If we take the basis of the present population and
regard the proportion of eminent persons pro¬
duced by England as the standard, Wales has
produced slightly less than her share of persons
of ability, Ireland still less, and Scotland de¬
cidedly more than her share.

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

As regards Wales we have to bear in mind the
difficulty of a language not recognised as a
medium of civilisation. As regards Scotland we
probably have to recognise that intellectual apti¬
tudes are especially marked among the Scotch,
and also that the tendency has been fostered by
circumstances, since, as is well known, the low¬
land Scotch are almost identical in racial composi¬
tion with the northern English, and there are no
artificial barriers of language. On the other
hand, the Irish have been seriously hampered by
geographical and to some extent by linguistic
barriers, as well as by unfortunate political cir¬
cumstances, in contributing their due share to
British civilisation.

S Mr. A. H. H. Maclean has shown (Where We get Our
Best Men, London, 1900) that of some 2,500 British
persons of ability belonging to the nineteenth century
70 per cent, are English, 18 per cent. Scotch, 10 per
cent. Irish, and 2 per cent. Welsh. We thus find that,
by taking a much lower standard of ability and confining
ourselves to the most recent period, Scotland stands
higher than ever, while Ireland benefits very greatly
at the expense of both England and Wales. This is
probably not altogether an unexpected result. It is
on the whole confirmed by an analysis of British Men
of the Time, made by Dr. (now Sir) Conan Doyle ( Nine¬
teenth Century, Aug., 1888).

Both Mr. Maclean and Sir Conan Doyle adopted

NATIONALITY AND RACE.

the crude test of birthplace. The somewhat higher
place which they give to the Irish is, however, really
confirmed by the analysis of my results. At an earlier
stage of my inquiry, when the standard of ability
adopted was higher, and the most recent group of
eminent persons (those included in the supplement
to the Dictionary of National Biography) had not been
added, I found that the English contribution was
larger, and the Irish smaller, than I now find it. It
appears evident that possibly with some lowering of
the standard of ability, and certainly with the advent
of modern times, the Irish contribution tends to reach
a larger proportion.

When we turn to consider the 143 persons who
are of mixed British, or mixed foreign and British,
race, we find that they may be divided as follows :

English and Irish 33

English and Scotch ... 30

English and Welsh ... 25

Mixed British, other than above . 9

British and Foreign ... 46

In percentages these results are : English and

Irish, 23 ; English and Scotch, 20.9 ; English and
Welsh, 17.4 ; other British, 6.2 ; British and
Foreign, 32.1. We here reach the interesting
result that notwithstanding the extreme frequency
of English-Scotch marriages, and the very high
proportion of ability among the unmixed Scotch,

2 6

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

the English-Irish group stands, even absolutely,
above the English-Scotch group, while the
English- Welsh group is still more largely out of
proportion with the small pure Welsh group, and
is not far behind the English-Scotch group.
It would appear that, so far as ability is concerned,
the Irish and the Welsh are much better adapted
for crossing with the English than are the more
closely related Scotch.

There are forty-six persons in whom one or
more elements of foreign blood are mingled with
one or more British elements. These do not, of
course, include all the foreigners who have played
a part in English civilisation, since no person of
purely foreign blood was taken into account in
the preparation of my list. This has, for instance,
led to the omission of numerous early Normans
(like Beckett), some later French Huguenots
(like Romilly), and several eminent Jews.

Even though the purely French persons of
eminence are omitted, the French elements re¬
main distinctly the most important. At least
seventeen of our forty-six individuals of partly
foreign origin have had a French parent or grand¬
parent. Some of these were Huguenots. No
account has been taken of ancestors beyond the
grandparents, but a Huguenot ancestral element
seemingly more remote than the grandparents is

NATIONALITY AND RACE.

certainly of very frequent occurrence ; I have
noted it in seventeen cases, and it certainly occurs
much oftener. Other remote Huguenot elements
(especially Walloon, Flemish and Dutch) occur
with only less frequency. German parents and
grandparents only occur ten times ; the Dutch
and Flemish, occurring eight times, are but little
behind, while five of our eminent persons were
partly Italian. The exact combinations, with
the number of times of their occurrence, are as
follow : —

English and French . . .12

English and German ... 8

English and Dutch ... 5

English and Italian ... 3

English and Flemish ... 2

Scotch and French ... 2

English, Irish, French and Swiss . 2

English and Russian 1

English and Danish 1

English, Irish and German . . 1

Irish and French 1

Irish and Italian 1

Irish and Spanish 1

English, Irish and Italian . . 1

Scotch and Dutch 1

Irish and Austrian 1

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

English, Scotch and German . . i

Welsh and Swiss i

Welsh and Italian i

There is much interest in considering separately
the places of origin of the 55 eminent women on
our list. Of these 29 are English, 4 Scotch, 4
Irish, and 18 of mixed origin. The obvious
points to note here are the very remarkable preva¬
lence of women of mixed race (in the proportion
of 32 per cent, instead of only 13 per cent, as in
the case of our eminent persons generally), and
the rise of Ireland to equality with Scotland.
When we analyse the eighteen mixed cases the
same prevalence of the Irish element appears in
a very much more marked form. The various
mixtures are as follows : —

English and Irish ... 8

English and Scotch ... 2

English and Welsh ... 2

English and French ... 2

English and Italian 1

English, Irish and German . . 1

English, Irish and Italian . . 1

English, Irish, French and Swiss . 1

Here we see that while an English element
enters into every combination, in not less than

NATIONALITY AND RACE.

eleven of the eighteen cases it is combined with
an Irish element. The Scotch element reaches
no higher a level than the Welsh and is even
inferior to the French. Among our eminent
persons generally not more than one in fifteen
is Irish ; among the eminent women more than
one in four is Irish, while Scotland, which has pro¬
duced relatively the largest share of eminent men,
has produced relatively the smallest share of
eminent women.

So far we have been concerned solely with the
distribution of our eminent ability in the main
divisions of the United Kingdom. There is,
however, much interest in determining the distri¬
bution of ability within these main divisions.
The obvious, and indeed the inevitable, basis for
this part of the inquiry is the division into coun¬
ties. It is, however, a very awkward and incon¬
venient basis. The counties are very unequal in
size, usually too small, and in most cases they
correspond to no ancient boundaries. They have
neither the historical significance of the ancient
French provinces, nor the practical convenience
of the modern French departments. The ancient
English dioceses furnish on the whole a better basis
and one that for the most part corresponds to
real ancient divisions ; * but it was obviously

* See e.g. G. Hill, English Dioceses.

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

inconvenient and inadvisable to fall back on an
extinct division of the country. It was neces¬
sary to be content with the county basis and to
seek so far as possible to minimise its disad¬
vantages.

In the first place the English counties may be
presented in accordance with the absolute number
of elements of ability which each possesses, with
no attempt to show the significance of the
numbers. It will, of course, be remembered (and
may be clearly seen by reference to Appendix B)
that in consequence of the imperfection of our
knowledge these elements are of disparate value, so
that while one individual may be counted four
times (i.e., once for each of his grandparents),
another may only be counted once. Most indi¬
viduals are counted twice.

Yorkshire ..... 90

Norfolk ..... 67

Devon ..... 56

Kent ...... 51

Suffolk ..... 50

Lancashire . 43

Lincolnshire .... 37

Somerset ..... 30

Cornwall . . . . . 30

Gloucestershire .... 28

NATIONALITY AND RACE.

Essex 27

Warwickshire .... 26

Shropshire ..... 24

Staffordshire .... 24

Wiltshire ..... 24

Northumberland .... 20

Worcestershire .... 20

Derbyshire .... 19

Cheshire . . . . . 19

Dorset ..... 19

Hampshire .... 19

Buckinghamshire 1 9

Northamptonshire ... 18

Hertfordshire .... 18

Herefordshire . . . . 17

Oxfordshire .... 16

Cumberland . . . . 16

Nottinghamshire . . . 16

Leicestershire . .15

Cambridgeshire .... 15

Surrey . . . . . 14

Westmoreland . . . . 11

Sussex ..... 10

Durham ..... 8

Bedfordshire .... 8

Berkshire ..... 8

Rutland ..... 6

Middlesex . 5

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

Huntingdonshire .
Monmouth

The significance of these results is not quite
obvious to casual inspection. We see that the
origins of English ability are to be found all over
the country, and we see also, as we should expect,
that the large counties have produced much
ability and the small counties little. How can
we ascertain the real significance of these figures ?

There are two methods we may adopt for
ascertaining the significance of our figures : we
may determine the amount of ability in each
county in relation to its area, or we may determine
it in relation to its population.

The method of comparison which rests on ascer¬
taining the relative amount of ability per square
mile for each county is not so absurd in the case
of a country like England as it may possibly
seem at the first glance. To compare the ability
per square mile of a county like present-day
Lancashire, covered with great towns, to an agri¬
cultural county like present-day Norfolk or
Suffolk, would be obviously unfair to the latter.
But we may remember that East Anglia was a
populous manufacturing centre for many centuries
during which Lancashire resembled modern Cum¬
berland. During the long history of England

NATIONALITY AND RACE.

the various counties have passed through many
economic vicissitudes, and while some have
doubtless succeeded in remaining throughout at a
fairly medium level of populousness, others have
at some periods been great centres of population,
and at other periods denuded of their inhabitants.^
Thus when we put one period against another the
differences between the counties in average density
of population are probably small, and it is by no
means so absurd to ascertain the relative amount
of ability per square mile for the whole period as
it would be for a single century.

An even approximate determination of the
amount of ability in relation to the population is
obviously impossible for the whole period ; we
can only obtain it with certainty for the
nineteenth century. I have thought it of
some interest, and probably of real signifi¬
cance as an aid to determining the problem
before us, to consider separately the eminent
persons born during the nineteenth century
(nearly all in the first half), and to determine
what relation the elements they supply us with
bear to the population of the various counties as

* The Poll-tax returns for the 14th century (as reproduced, e.g ., by Edgar
Powell, The Rising in East Anglia in 1381, Appendix I., pp. 120 et seq.)
seem to indicate that, absolutely, Yorks, Norfolk, Suffolk, Somerset and
Lincoln were at that time the most populous counties.

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

revealed by the census of 1841.* The basis of
comparison seems here to be fairly sound, though
unfortunately the numbers for each county are
necessarily so small that we cannot consider the
results as absolutely conclusive when they are not
otherwise confirmed.

It must be added, further, that there is another
source of error the existence of which probably
might not be suspected. Apart altogether from
its rise and fall in population a county may still
exhibit a very marked fluctuation in its genius-
producing power. A very interesting and decisive
example of this is furnished by Kent. On account
of its proximity to the continent Kent has from
the earliest periods been a highly civilised county,
and it has always been a populous one ; it re¬
mains a populous and flourishing county at the
present day. It has also been, as we shall see,
very prolific indeed in genius. Yet at the present
day its ability-producing powers have almost
ceased. It is associated, perhaps more than any
other county, with the Renaissance in England ;
Caxton belonged to Kent ; it was the home of
Marlowe and Lyly, the two teachers of Shake¬
speare, as well as of Linacre and Harvey, who
represent the English Renaissance on the scientific

* I selected this census as it was convenient to use Fletcher’s statistical
analysis of its results.

NATIONALITY AND RACE.

side ; at that period it was prolific in adminis¬
trators, diplomatists, and soldiers. It was strongly
Royalist, and suffered greatly in the cause of
Charles I. When Charles fell, Kent fell so far as
genius-producing power is concerned, # and how¬
ever it may continue to flourish in population and
general prosperity, it has never regained its power
to add largely to English ability. In the six¬
teenth and seventeenth centuries its contribu¬
tions to the elements of English ability are repre¬
sented by the figures 15 and 16 respectively —
relatively a very large proportion — but in the
eighteenth century, so fertile in ability, Kent is
only responsible for the relatively small contribu¬
tion of eleven elements, and in the nineteenth
century its contribution has sunk to four elements,
which do not include a single individual who was
wholly Kentish. Yet, as we shall see, Kent
stands almost, if not quite, at the head of all the
English counties in its total contribution to
English genius. Although no other county could
be found to furnish so remarkable an instance of
great intellectual fertility followed by intellectual
decadence, without decrease in population and

* It cannot be said that this coincidence adequately explains the pheno¬
menon. Dr. Beddoe suggests to me that the decline of Kent may be largely
due to the attraction of London draining away its best stocks, and that we may
thus account for the fact that Surrey, Essex, and even Suffolk, stand lower in
genius-producing power for the nineteenth century than for the whole period.

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS

prosperity, this case is enough to show that we
can by no means assume that the intellectual
fertility of a county in one century is any certain
index to its general intellectual fertility.

I now present^ side by side, the order of de¬
creasing intellectual fertility into which fall the
counties our eminent men belong to when we
consider the relative amount of the total ability
for the whole period on the basis of area (taken
as per 1,000 square miles), and also the order
into which the elements for the nineteenth cen¬
tury fall on the basis of the population of the
counties in 1841. A plus sign after the figures in
the first column indicates that as the modern
population of the county in question is very
decidedly below the average for the country
generally, we probably ought to add a few units
to the figures given ; a minus sign indicates that
as the modern population is much above the
average for the country generally, we probably
ought to subtract a few units to reach a fair
estimate ; the sign of equality means that the
population of the county approximates to the
average for the country generally. Those coun¬
ties which contain a proportion of elements of
genius equal to more than 19 to the 1,000 square
miles, or more than 2 per 100,000 inhabitants,
must be considered prolific in genius.

NATIONALITY AND RACE.

Amount of
ability in ratio

Amount of ability
during nineteenth
century in ratio per

per 1,000 square

100,000 inhabitants

miles.

(1841).

Rutland

40+

Norfolk

5-3

Suffolk

33 +

Herefordshire

4-3

Kent .

32 —

Oxfordshire

4-3

Norfolk

31 +

Hertfordshire

3-8

Warwickshire

29-

Worcestershire .

3.3

Hertfordshire

28+

Westmoreland

3-6

Worcestershire

27-

Dorsetshire

3-4

Buckinghamshire.

25 +

Cumberland

3-4

Cornwall

22 +

Warwickshire

2.7

Gloucestershire .

22 =

Cornwall .

2.6

Lancashire .

22 —

Buckinghamshire

2.5

Devonshire .

21 +

Shropshire .

2-5

Oxfordshire

21 +

Northumberland .

2.4

Herefordshire

20+

Wiltshire .

2.3

Staffordshire

20“

Cambridgeshire .

2.3

Nottinghamshire .

19 +

Lincolnshire

2.2

Dorsetshire .

19 +

Suffolk

2.1

N orthamptonshire

18+

Nottinghamshire.

2.0

Leicestershire

18+

Berkshire .

1.8

Somerset

l8 +

Devonshire.

i-5

Shropshire .

18+

Yorkshire .

i-5

Cambridgeshire .

i8+

Derbyshire .

1.4

Derbyshire .

18 =

Cheshire

1.2

Surrey

18 —

Gloucestershire .

1.2

Cheshire.

18 —

Hampshire

1. 1

Essex

17+

Leicestershire

•9

Wiltshire

17 +

Somerset

■9

Bedfordshire

17 +

Lancashire .

Middlesex .

Staffordshire

Westmoreland

14+

Essex

Yorkshire .

14 =

Kent

•7

38 A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

Amount of
ability in ratio
per 1,000 square
miles.

Amount of ability
during nineteenth
century in ratio per
100,000 inhabitants
(1841).

Huntingdonshire

13 +

Sussex

•

•4

Lincolnshire

T3+

Surrey

•

•3

Berkshire .

11 +

Durham

♦

•3

Hampshire

114-

Bedfordshire

•

Cumberland

10+

Northamptonshire

Northumberland

Huntingdonshire .

Sussex

7 +

Monmouth

•

Durham

Rutland

•

Monmouth .

5 +

Middlesex, omitted*

If we consider the eminent women separately
we find that eleven English counties have pro¬
duced more than one unit of ability. The abso¬
lute numbers are as follow : —

Norfolk ..... g

Suffolk ..... 5

Yorkshire ..... 4

Hereford . 3

Kent 3

Northumberland .... 3

Lancashire ..... 2

Worcestershire .... 2

Shropshire ..... 2

Devonshire ..... 2

Cornwall . . . 2

* There are three units to Middlesex, but not having the population for
Middlesex in 1841, excluding the metropolis, I have not included this county.

NATIONALITY AND RACE.

The numbers are too small to make it worth
while to attempt to ascertain the relative value
of these figures. It is sufficiently clear that '
Norfolk stands first and that Suffolk, a much
smaller county, follows very closely after.*
Although the estimate of ability on the basis of
the area of the counties is obviously only roughly
approximate, while the more reliable method of
ascertaining the proportion to population during
the nineteenth century suffers from the defect that
it by no means necessarily indicates the amount
of ability in previous centuries, and while both
methods are hampered by the very small size of
many of the counties, we may still reach certain
conclusions by considering the two lists together.
The counties that stand high on both lists have
probably been highly productive of intellectual
ability ; those that stand low in both lists have
probably been markedly unproductive. We may
probably believe that the counties that have con¬
tributed most largely to the making of English
men of genius are Norfolk, Suffolk, Hertford¬
shire, Warwickshire, Worcestershire, Herefordshire,
Buckinghamshire, Cornwall, Dorsetshire, Ox¬
fordshire, and Shropshire. To these we must

* Conan Doyle in his analysis of Men of the Time found that “Suffolk
appears to be pre-eminently the county of famous women.” I believe that
this result is quite correct when we adopt a somewhat lower standard of
ability than I have here adopted.

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

certainly add Kent, since its total output more
than compensates for its intellectual decadence
during recent centuries ; but we are perhaps
scarcely justified in including Rutland, which
by a curious anomaly appears at the head
of the first list, though the smallest and one of
the most thinly populated of English counties.

It cannot hastily be assumed that, while these
counties rank probably at the head of English
counties from the intellectual point of view,
there are not others which perhaps on a perfectly
sound basis ought not to rank almost on a level
with them. This would especially be so if we
were to take quality of genius as well as quantity
into consideration. It is probable that Somer¬
set, Devonshire, Gloucestershire, Wiltshire and
Essex should be included among those of the
first rank, although the two associated East
Anglian counties of Norfolk and Suffolk have a
fairly assured position at the head.

It will be noted that the results here reached in
regard to the distribution of ability amongst the English
counties involve a very high, if not indeed the highest,
place for Suffolk. Possibly the reader may be inclined
to view this conclusion with suspicion should he chance
to learn that the present writer, though having no
personal connection with this county, happens to have
been ancestrally connected with Suffolk during many
centuries. Personally, I hope, I have no sympathy

NATIONALITY AND RACE.

with the bias of patriotism, for I recognise that (however
useful sometimes in practical affairs) it is an unfailing
sign of intellectual ill-breeding ; but there is always
a temptation to view with suspicion (which is often
indeed justified) any investigation of the present kind
as probably affected by local patriotism. It may
therefore be proper to assist the reader to reach a
personal equation in this case by stating that the
present writer was born in Surrey and that his heredity
may be expressed in the formula : Suffolk-Hampshire :
Durham-Suffolk. It may be added that while I had
not anticipated the high place which Suffolk would take
as a contributor to British ability, that position is to
some extent supported by the results of other im¬
partial inquiries. Thus Mr. Maclean finds that Suffolk
is among the six English counties which on the basis
of population contributed the largest number of eminent
men to the Victorian period, and places Ipswich first
among the towns (excluding the large cities) which have
been prolific in ability. Sir Conan Doyle, investigating
Men of the Time , finds that Suffolk is among the three
English counties that stand first in production of
intellectual ability on the basis of population, and
remarks that its intellectual productivity is “ quite
phenomenal.”

It must be rememberd that these inquiries were on
the basis of birthplace, and that as East Anglians show
a marked tendency to emigrate westwards, and especi¬
ally to London, in a large number of cases they are
credited to other districts.

On the basis of these results, and taking into
consideration also the special quality of the indi-

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

viduals (as may be done by studying Appendix
B), we come, I believe, to the conclusion that
there are two, or, rather, three, great foci of
intellectual ability in England : the East Anglian
focus, the south-western focus, and the focus of
the Welsh Border.

The East Anglian focus may for the present
purpose be said to include not only Norfolk and
Suffolk, but also the adjoining counties of Essex,
Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire, which, though
inferior both in the quantity and the quality of
their genius to East Anglia proper, are still high
in intellectual ability which is nearly always of
distinctively East Anglian type ; these five
counties form a compact whole. Among the
eminent men who, so far as our knowledge, some¬
times limited, extends, belong wholly to this
region are Bishop Andrewes, the Bacons, Thomas
Cavendish, Chaucer (?), Constable, Cotman,
Cowper, Cranmer, Flaxman, John Fletcher,
Gainsborough, William Gilbert, Grosseteste, the
Lyttons, Nelson, the Newmans, Porson, Pusey,
Ray, the Veres, Robert Walpole and Wolsey.
Among those who belong in part to this region are
Airy, the Arnolds, Barrow, Bradlaugh, Colet,
Gresham, Stephen Hales, Charles Lamb, the
Martineaus, Sir Thomas More, Pater, Sir Thomas
Smith and Walsingham. Ethnologically, it may

NATIONALITY AND FRACE.

be remarked, this focus is the most recent of the
three. East Anglia is a region very open to
invasion ; Brythons, Romans, Angles, and Nor¬
mans all seem to have come here in large
numbers ; and it differs from every other English
district (except to some extent Kent, a county
closely allied to it) in continuing to welcome
foreigners — Dutch, Flemish, Walloon, French —
all through mediaeval times, down to the revoca¬
tion of the Edict of Nantes at the end of the
seventeenth century.

Middlesex with London lies on the borders of
the East Anglian focus, with which, probably, of
all the foci of English genius it is most intimately
connected. It can scarcely, however, be included
within that focus. The Metropolis itself is ex¬
cluded from our enquiry, partly because we are
not taking the accident of birth-place into
account, and partly because it seems impossible
to find any eminent person who belongs to
London, or even to Middlesex, through all his
grandparents. Middlesex is poor in aboriginal
ability, even for a small county, and if we were
to class it psychologically at all I believe it
would fall in with the predominantly Saxon
group of counties which includes Berkshire,
Surrey, Sussex and Hampshire — a group which.

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

as we shall see, constitute a district remarkably
poor in aboriginal ability.

The marked prevalence of merely native ability in
London, and the marked deficiency of really aboriginal
ability, are phenomena alike easy of explanation. Among
the crowds who drift into every great metropolis there
are always many clever and ambitious people ; hence
the number of able persons who are merely connected
with a metropolis by the accident of birth. But a
great metropolis swiftly kills those whom it attracts ;
Cantlie {Degeneration amongst Londoners , 1885, p. 19)
very properly defined a Londoner as one whose parents
and grand-parents were born and bred in London ;
but during the four years in which he investigated
this question he was unable to find a single Londoner
in this true and definite sense, and even those who
were Londoners back to the grandparents on one side
only, were usually stunted or feeble, and unlikely to
propagate. Dr. Harry Campbell {Causation of Disease ,
p. 245) among 200 London-born children found two or
three whose parents and grandparents were born and
bred in London, and these children were very delicate.

The south-western focus of English genius is
the largest, and although in proportion to the
population ability is here less prevalent than in
the East Anglian district, in absolute amount,
and perhaps even in importance, this region may
perhaps be said to be the most conspicuous
centre of English intellectual energy. I regard
it as comprising the counties of Wiltshire,

NATIONALITY AND RACE.

Somerset, Dorset, Devon, and Cornwall. These
counties, together with part of Hampshire,
make up the whole of the south-western pro¬
montory of Great Britain. The population of
this region is marked by very much darker hair,
and therefore a much higher index of nigrescence,
than the population of the counties to east of it.
The district is defended by Wansdyke and
Bokerley Dyke, one of the most important struc¬
tures of this kind in Europe, and this fact indi¬
cates that the region was once arrayed against
the rest of Britain. Pitt-Rivers* has shown
that this wad is of Roman or post-Roman date,
possibly Saxon. This great focus of British
genius is, taken altogether, unquestionably the
oldest of the three foci which we may detect in
England. We may call it the Goidelic-Iberian
centre. It is well known that this region was
the last stronghold of the early British power in
England ; when, finally, its power was broken
in war the Saxon invaders had become Chris¬
tianised and settled peacefully side by side with
the aboriginal inhabitants. The people of this
region were still described by King Alfred as
“ Welsh Kin,” and the predominance of the
aboriginal element may still be detected in the
characteristics of the genius of this region.

* Excavations in Cranborne Chase, Vol. 3.

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

Among the more eminent individuals who seem
to belong wholly to this region are Roger Bacon,
Blackstone, Robert Blake, St. Boniface, Clifford,
Coleridge, Dampier, Drake, St. Dunstan, Ford,
Grocyn, Hawkins, Hobbes, Hooker, John of
Salisbury, Keats, Locke, Pym, Raleigh, Reynolds,
Rodney, Alfred Stevens, Sydenham, Trevithick,
Thomas Young. Among those who belong to it
in part are Matthew Arnold, Bradley, Browning,
Byron, the Cannings, Fielding, C. J. Fox, Froude,
the Kingsleys, Huxley.

The third focus, that of the Welsh border,
includes the counties of Gloucestershire, War¬
wickshire, Worcestershire, Herefordshire, Shrop¬
shire, and Cheshire. This selection of counties
may possibly seem a little arbitrary, but it will
be found not to be so on turning to the anthropo¬
logical map of the British Islands (as given, for
instance, in Ripley’s Races of Europe ), founded
on Beddoe’s observations of the index of ni¬
grescence. These six counties form a dark¬
haired borderland in western England against
Wales, and the eastern infolding to Warwickshire
cannot be disregarded.* Monmouth is properly

* There is a curious and compact island of very dark-haired peoples in the
counties to the north of London, possibly connected with the Warwick
infolding of the Welsh Border, but any psychological affinity of the inhabi¬
tants of these counties with those of the Welsh Border does not seem to be
clear, though it is possible.

NATIONALITY AND RACE.

excluded ; its contribution to English genius is
extremely minute ; it was not even nominally
English until the time of Henry VIII. ; it still
remains anthropologically Welsh, and the study
of its surnames shows, as Guppy states in his
Homes of Family Names , that it is even more
Welsh than Wales. The counties here included
in the Welsh Border are all much more thoroughly
Anglicised, but Welsh was spoken in most of them
until comparatively recent times, even in Glouces¬
tershire, undoubtedly a very mixed county. # The
language of Shropshire has been described as
“ English spoken as a foreign language.” In
Herefordshire Welsh appears to be not quite ex¬
tinct even yet.f The whole of the district repre¬
sents the mingling on the one side of Welsh ele¬
ments, on the other of Saxon and Anglian
elements. It is not difficult to account for this
mingling ; when in the eighth century Offa
extended the limits of Mercia westwards, chang¬
ing the name of the British town of Pengwyrn to
Shrewsbury, he adopted the policy of leaving
on the land all the Britons who wished to remain ;

* “ The Transsabrina is very ‘ aboriginal ’ and dark-haired,” remarks Dr.
Beddoe ; “ the Cotswolds are largely Saxon and fair ; the Vale lies between
in race as in position.”

t Rhys and Brynmor- Jones, The Welsh People , p. 526; cf. Southall,
Wales and Her Language , especially ch. ix. dealing with traces of Welsh in
the Marches.

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS

in more recent times there has been a Welsh
reflux eastwards, and the result is a fairly
thorough assimilation of Welsh and English
racial elements. The Welsh elements we must
certainly regard as predominantly Brythonic
rather than Goidelic, the latter people being
mainly confined to the north-west and south¬
west districts of Wales. It may therefore be
said that this Anglo-Brythonic district of the
Welsh Border is intermediate in age between the
recent East Anglian focus and the ancient south¬
western focus.*

Among the more eminent individuals who
belong wholly to the Welsh Border are Alexander
of Hales, Samuel Butler, Warren Hastings, Sir
Thomas Lawrence, Shakespeare, Purcell, William
Tynda’e and Wycherley. Among those who be¬
long to it in part are Robert Boyle, John Bright,
Sir Thomas Browne, Clive, Charles Darwin,
Fielding, Keble, the Herberts, the Kembles,
Landor, Macaulay, Map, William Morris, the
Penns, Wedgwood, the Wesleys, Wren, Wycherley.

It will be noted that all three of the great foci
of English intellect belong mainly to the southern
half of the country, the most anciently civilised

* It is well recognised that the Goidels, the earlier Celtic invaders of Britain,
ultimately mingled with the dark Iberian aboriginals, so losing the character¬
istic Celtic fairness. The Belgic invaders, the Brythonic Celts, came later
and are nearly always found eastward of the Goidelic-Iberian populations.

NATIONALITY AND RACE.

part, although within recent centuries the least
prosperous and the most thinly populated. It
must be added that nearly the whole of the
northern part of England from Lincolnshire,
Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, through York¬
shire well on into the Lowlands of Scotland, con¬
stitutes a large region which, although its intel¬
lectual elements are of no great density, presents
its own peculiar anthropological characters. It
is the predominantly Anglo-Danish part of
England, containing the fairest population of the
country.* Its intellectual fertility is greatest in
its northern portions, which now form part of
Scotland, and at its southern border, where it
blends with East Anglia. To this last district
belongs Sir Isaac Newton, the supreme represen¬
tative of Anglo-Danish genius, f

* Leicestershire should doubtless be included in the Anglo-Danish district.
On the basis of place-names Taylor finds it to be the most Danish county in
England. Beddoe’s map of the index of nigrescence, however, shows it to
be ethnologically darker than the Anglo-Danish district proper. Psychologi¬
cally its genius seems to me rather mixed but certainly in large measure
Anglo-Danish.

t I was formerly inclined to think that Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire
should be affiliated to the East Anglian focus, but a more careful considera¬
tion of the facts leads to the conclusion that, on the whole, both anthropolo¬
gically and psychologically they belong to the Anglo-Danish district. I still
think that the northern portion of Northamptonshire, and still more emphati¬
cally Rutland, are mainly East Anglian in the character of their genius. The
former county, however, seems to present a very special and vigorous mixture
of East Anglian, Anglo-Danish and aboriginal elements. It is not easy to
fix the exact western limits of the East Anglian district unless we boldly carry
it as far as the Welsh Border counties, Warwickshire and Gloucestershire.

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

Apart from exact science and from scholarship,
the Angio-Danish district, in proportion to its
size, has not produced many men in purely intel¬
lectual fields. Its children have usually been
more remarkable for force of character than for
force of intellect. Their stubborn independent
temper involves an aptitude for martyrdom ;
many religious martyrs come from this region, and
the martyrologist Foxe also. East Anglia is pro¬
ductive of great statesmen and great ecclesiastics ;
it is also a land of great scholars. At the same
time nearly half the British musical composers
and more than a third of the painters have come
from this same region. It has no aptitude for
abstract thinking, for metaphysics, but in con¬
crete thinking, in the art of treating science
philosophically, it is easily supreme. Its special
characters seem to be its humanity, its patience,
its grasp of detail, its deliberate flexibility, com¬
bined with a profound love of liberty and inde¬
pendence.* The characteristic English love of
compromise is rooted in East Anglia. So typi¬
cally English a statesman as Walpole, with his
sound instincts in practical affairs, belonged to

* It may be noted that the founders of New England, both on the political
and the religious side, were largely produced by East Anglia. The Washingtons
came from the related county of Northamptonshire ; the Emersons were from
Suffolk ; Winthrop, who, it has been said, more than any other man moulded
Massachusetts, which moulded New England, belonged to Central Suffolk.

NATIONALITY AND RACE. 51

Norfolk, and Wolsey belonged to Suffolk. In
spite, however, of the marked sanity and self-
possession of the East Anglian, it may be added
that while East Anglia has produced many of
the best Englishmen it has also produced a con¬
siderable proportion of the worst. # Those who
figure in English history chiefly by virtue of their
villainy do not appear in my list, but it is notable
that many of the great men who have come
down to us with a somewhat flawed reputation
belong here ; Bacon is a typical example of the
first rank.

When we turn to the south-western focus of
English genius we find ourselves among people
of different mental texture, but of equal mental
distinction. In positive intellectual achievement
they compare with the slow and patient people
of East Anglia, while as brilliant personalities
they are in the very first rank. They are sailors
rather than scholars, and courtiers, perhaps,
rather than statesmen ; they are innovators,
daring free-thinkers, pioneers in the physical and
intellectual worlds. Raleigh, on both sides a
Devonshire man, is the complete type of these
people. They are, above all, impressive persona-

* It must be added, at the same time, that the records of criminality, at all
events during the nineteenth century, by no means show the East Anglian
counties among the worst.

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

lities, aggressive, accomplished, irresistible, break¬
ing rather than bending, without the careful
foresight of the laborious and self-distrustful
people of the east coast. This district alone
has furnished a third of the great sailors of
Britain, and the most brilliant group, with Drake
and Hawkins and Gilbert as well as Raleigh.
The expansive Elizabethan age gave the men of
these parts their supreme chance, and they
availed themselves of it to the utmost. Great
Britain’s most eminent soldiers have not usually
been English, but one of the most famous of all,
Marlborough, belongs to this region. In the
arts of peace this south-western focus shows
especially well in painting. It cannot, indeed,
be compared to the East Anglian focus in this
respect, but Reynolds belongs to Devon, and is a
typical representative of the qualities of this
region on the less aggressive side, just as Raleigh
is on the more militant side, both alike charming
and accomplished personalities. Both in the
material and spiritual worlds there is an imagina¬
tive exaltation, an element of dash and daring,
in the men of this south-western district, which
seems to carry them through safely. The south¬
western focus is not quite so homogeneous as
the eastern group. Somerset, which is the centre
of the focus, seems to me to present its real and

NATIONALITY AND RACE.

characteristic kernel, especially on the purely
intellectual side. We do not find here the dash¬
ing recklessness, the somewhat piratical ten¬
dency, nor quite the same brilliant personal
qualities as at the western part of the peninsula.
The Somerset group of men are superficially
more like those of East Anglia, but in reality
with a very distinct physiognomy of their own.
Like the rest of this region, Somerset is a land
of great sailors, but the typical sailor hero of
Somerset is Blake, and the difference between
Blake and Raleigh is significant of the difference
between the men of Somerset and the men of
Devon. Somerset has produced the philosophers
of this region, Roger Bacon, Hobbes, Locke ; and
in more recent days Bagehot and Huxley have
been typical thinkers of the group. Hooker, the
“ judicious,” is among the men of Devon. They
are not often scholars (notwithstanding the pre¬
sence of the “ ever-memorable ” Hales), being
prone to rely much on their own native qualities.
One recalls the remark of Hobbes, when charged
with an indifference to books : “ If I read as

much as other people I should know as little as
other people.” While less concrete than the
East Anglians, these eminent thinkers have not
the abstract metaphysical tendencies of the
North British philosophers ; they reveal a certain

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

practical sagacity, a determination to see
things clearly, a hatred of cant and shams, a
“ positive ” tendency, which is one of the notes
of purely English thought and may be said to
have its headquarters here. The representative
scientific man of this region is the brilliant and
versatile Thomas Young, whose luminous intelli¬
gence and marvellous intuition render him a
typical example of genius in its purest form.

It is easy to define the nature of the genius of
the Welsh Border. It is artistic in the widest
sense, and notably poetic ; there is a tendency
to literary and oratorical eloquence, frequently
tinged with religious or moral emotion, and
among those who belong entirely to this district
there are no scientific men of the first order.
This region has the honour of claiming Shake¬
speare ; and it may be pointed out that it is
difficult to account for Shakespeare without
assuming in him the presence of a large though
not predominant Celtic element. Landor, one
of the greatest of English masters of prose, comes
in part within the Welsh Border, as does Fielding,
while Purcell, the greatest of English musical
composers, also probably belongs to this district.
Sir Thomas Browne, though only a Welsh Bor¬
derer on his father’s side, is very typical, and
Macaulay is characteristic of the Celt as historian.

NATIONALITY AND RACE.

The presence of Mrs. Siddons, although the
genius of the Kemble family is attributed mainly
to their Irish mother, helps to indicate the
characteristics of this region, which although it
has produced fewer great personalities than the
two main foci of English genius, has certainly
had its full share in some of the very greatest.
The part of the Welsh Border in Darwin was
small, but though he was more characteristically
a son of the Anglo-Danish and East Anglian
regions, it was probably not without its influence.

It has already been made clear that the county
of Kent constitutes a remarkable, though small,
centre of English genius. I was formerly inclined
to regard this very interesting district as depen¬
dent on the important East Anglian focus. I
am convinced, however, that this is a mistake.
If we carefully contemplate the eminent persons
produced by Kent it will be seen that they can
be more easily affiliated, on the whole, to the
south-western than to the East Anglian focus.
Harvey, for instance, the greatest of the Kentish
men, resembled the south-western people as much
in intellectual temperament, as, by his short
stature, dark hair and eyes, choleric constitution,
he resembled them anthropologically. This seem¬
ing affinity of the genius of Kent to that of the
south-western promontory, though it cannot be

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

said to be complete identity, may perhaps be
regarded as one of the numerous facts which tend
to invalidate the belief, widely prevalent a few
years ago under the influence of several eminent
historians and ultimately resting on some rhetorical
expressions of Gildas, # that the Romano-British
inhabitants of Kent were entirely exterminated
by the Teutonic invaders.

Undoubtedly, however, the Teutonic element
is considerable in all this south-eastern part of
England, as far westwards as Wilts. One is
indeed tempted to ask whether it may serve to
explain another psychological phenomenon which
is revealed by the distribution of English genius.
The Jutes came to Kent ; the Saxons occupied
the regions to the west of Kent. This district,
including (with Kent and Essex) the whole of the
light-haired populations of southern England, is
occupied by the counties of Sussex, Surrey,
Hampshire and Berkshire. Except in so far as
Surrey is suburban to London and profits by
this proximity, all this region is comparatively
bare of aboriginal genius. Mackintosh observed,
in his notable study of the psychic characteristics
of British peoples, that the unmixed English

* Professor H. Williams, in his recent edition of Gildas \Cymmrodorion
Record Soc. 1899, Part I.), points out that Gildas is not a historian, but a
preacher of righteousness who is simply seeking to show how divine anger
visits sin. Beddoe finds early elements persisting in the Kentish population.

NATIONALITY AND RACE.

Saxon, unlike the Angle (and possibly unlike
the Jute), is marked by mental mediocrity. One
is tempted to ask whether this fact, if it is a fact,
may be invoked to explain the result of the
present inquiry as regards this region.

I do not propose to consider in detail the dis¬
tribution of ability in the other parts of the
British Islands, for the figures are here too small
to yield reliable results. The distribution of
ability in Wales, Scotland and Ireland is, how¬
ever, so definitely confined to certain districts
that a mere inspection of the crude figures suffices
to give us for each of these countries a fairly
close conception of their intellectual geography.

In the case of Wales the elements of ability
are distributed as follows :

Glamorganshire .... 7

Denbighshire .... 7

Montgomeryshire .... 6

Radnorshire ..... 6

Flintshire .... 3

Carnarvonshire .... 3

Anglesey . 3

Cardiganshire . . . . i

Pembrokeshire . . . . i

Merionethshire i

Caermarthenshire o

58 A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

It is not difficult to understand why a large,
fertile and populous district like Glamorganshire
— even leaving out of account its commercial and
mining activities — should stand high in actual
numbers, although it stands lower in proportion
to area and very low in relation to population.
It is more remarkable that Caermarthenshire,
the largest Welsh county, should show no trace¬
able elements of genius. The really productive
intellectual region of Wales is comprised in Den¬
bighshire, Montgomeryshire and Radnorshire.
This is a fact of some interest when we recall the
ethnological history of this region. Wales is a
Goidelic country (that is to say, a country in¬
habited by the earlier Celts mingled with abori¬
gines), which appears to have been subsequently
invaded by the Brythonic Ordovices ; these formed
a wedge in the country reaching to Cardigan Bay,
leaving the Goidels in the north-western district
and (as we may still observe in the map founded
on the index of nigrescence) in the south-western
district. But later still — probably soon after the
departure of the Romans — a very vigorous stock
led by Cuneda and speaking a tongue very closely
allied to Gaulish, came from what is now the
south of Scotland, and established themselves in
the centre of the Ordovician region, where their
leaders became the acknowledged ancestors of

NATIONALITY AND RACE.

the Gwyned Kings and the best known Welsh
saints. # Their land comprised Radnorshire, Mont¬
gomeryshire and the south-west of Denbighshire,
which is precisely the land which we have found
to be the focus of Welsh genius. It is very diffi¬
cult not to see here one at least, and perhaps the
chief, of the factors which have caused this com¬
paratively unimportant and thinly peopled region
to be so productive in ability.

In accordance with the comparative poverty of Wales
in intellectual achievements during the earlier periods
of subjection to England is the statement of Rhys and
Brynmor- J ones (The Welsh People , p. 471) that “from
the people as a whole hardly a voice comes during the
centuries from the Norman Conquest to the middle of
the eighteenth century. They tilled their land, attended
to their flocks and their herds, married and died in com¬
plete obscurity, without being in any great degree
touched by the intellectual movements of the sixteenth
and seventeenth centuries.” These authors have ably
expounded the causes of the intellectual decadence of
Wales during this long period.

The absolute figures of the ancestral elements
of ability in Scotland are as follows : —

Midlothian .
Aberdeenshire
Ayrshire
Lanarkshire .

* J. Rhys and D. Brynmor-Jones, The Welsh People , 1900, p. 21.

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

Fife . 15

Dumfriesshire . . . . 14

Forfarshire . . . . . 12

Perthshire ..... 9

Haddingtonshire .... 9

Ross-shire and Cromartyshire . 8

Berwickshire .... 8

Stirlingshire ..... 6

Argyleshire ..... 5

Elginshire ..... 4

Roxburghshire .... 4

Renfrewshire .... 4

Dumbartonshire .... 3

Sutherland ..... 2

Orkney and Shetland ... 2

Kincardineshire .... 2

Inverness-shire .... 2

Nairnshire ..... 2

Clackmannanshire ... 2

Selkirkshire .... 2

Wigtonshire .... 2

Banffshire ..... 2

Kinross-shire .... 1

Buteshire . 1

Caithness ..... 1

Linlithgowshire . . . . 1

Peeblesshire .... o

Kirkcudbrightshire ... o

NATIONALITY AND RACE.

It will be seen that the genius of Scotland has
been mainly produced by the tract between the
Cheviots and the Grampians. While, however,
the whole of this district is prolific in ability, a
narrow central belt has proved pre-eminently
able to breed men of intellect. This belt runs
from Aberdeen in a south-westerly direction
through Forfar, Fife, Midlothian, with the sur¬
rounding district, and Lanark (including Glas¬
gow) ; on reaching Ayr and Dumfriess it widens
out, not extending beyond the English border
westward into Galloway. Aberdeen and Edin¬
burgh have always been the two great centres
of Scotch genius. If, however, we were to take
into consideration the proportions of genius
according to area and population of the various
counties this geographical distribution would
appear less decisively marked. The upland coun¬
ties, whether in or out of the Highlands proper,
appear poor in genius and the Lowland counties
rich. But it must be remembered that the upland
counties are also poor in population and the low¬
land counties rich. So far as a rough comparison
of the total amount of genius with the recent
population can be considered as any indication
of the true distribution of genius in Scotland it
would appear that both Aberdeen and Edinburgh
really are very prolific in ability, and that Ayr,

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

Fife, and even Sutherland are little, if at all,
inferior in intellectual fertility, while Hadding¬
tonshire, Berwickshire, and Dumfriesshire would
appear to stand probably at the head. It would
seem that even on a population basis the dark¬
haired populations show a somewhat less intel¬
lectual fertility than the fair-haired populations.
This question is obviously complicated by the
language question, but it is noteworthy that
Sutherland, which is as fair-haired in population
as any part of Scotland, would appear to show
a fairly high proportion of ability relatively to
its population, while Inverness, which is the
darkest part of Scotland, stands very low, and
Galloway, which is a very dark region, stands
very much lower than the border counties, which
are very fair. If this tendency prevails in Scot¬
land it is the reverse of the tendency which
prevails in England (though not in Wales), where
the darker-haired districts seem on the whole to
be more prolific in ability than the fair-haired
regions. Another point about the distribution of
genius in Scotland which may be noted is that
the quantity and quality of its ability tend to go
together. Knox, Burns and Scott, the three
most famous Scotchmen — it is unnecessary to say
the greatest — all belonged to counties which would
appear to be among the most prolific in ability.

NATIONALITY AND RACE. 63

Turning to Ireland, we find that, as in Scotland,
certain regions appear to be rich in genius, others
poor, or even absolutely bare. The distribu¬
tion is as follows : —

Dublin . 15

Cork ...... 10

Antrim ..... 9

Down ..... 8

Waterford ..... 6

Londonderry .... 6

Kilkenny ..... 5

Clare . 4

Westmeath .... 4

Tyrone . 4

Wexford . 3

Limerick ..... 3

Kildare ..... 2

Tipperary ..... 2

Kerry ..... 2

Galway ..... 2

Mayo 2

Donegal . 2

Armagh ..... 2

Cavan . 1

Carlow ..... 1

Wicklow . 1

Queen’s County .... 1

64 A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

Longford . i

Meath, Louth, King’s County,

Sligo, Roscommon, Leitrim,

Fermanagh, Monaghan . . o

The predominance of Dublin in Ireland, it will
be seen, is more decisive than is that of Midlo¬
thian in Scotland ; it is, however, possible that
this is due to a greater ignorance of the ancestry
of eminent Irishmen. In any case, however, it
will be observed that the region of Ireland chiefly
productive in ability is Leinster with the adjoining
portion of Munster, and, closely following it,
Ulster. Both these districts — for we may con¬
sider them as separate though they adjoin, as
they are anthropologically distinct, the people
of Ulster being much darker — have long been
racially mixed. In the first district Goidels and
Brythons were both numerous, and various minor
foreign immigrations have taken place here since ;
in comparatively recent times it was chiefly in
Waterford and Dublin that the French Hugue¬
nots of Ireland settled. Ulster, as is well known,
received a large infusion of English and Scotch
blood in the seventeenth century, and this ad¬
mixture has very largely affected the character
of the ability it has produced. It is, however, a
mistake to suppose that the temperamental,

NATIONALITY AND RACE.

sometimes rather aggressive, energy of Ulster¬
men is due solely, or even perhaps mainly, to
English and Scotch admixtures, influential as
these have been. “ There is neither in Alban
nor in Ireland/’ we read in Lady Gregory’s
recension of the great Irish saga, “ an army that
can put down the men of Ulster when once their
weakness is gone and their anger is kindled.” *
Giraldus Cambrensis also bears testimony to the
vigour of the aboriginal Ulsterman. The
“ Saxon ” outsider is sometimes tempted to
think that in many respects the modern men of
Ulster are more Irish than the Irish themselves,
and such an opinion finds support in the fact
that, as measured by the index of nigrescence,
Ulster anthropologically approaches Connaught.
There can be no doubt, however, that English
and Scotch elements, however largely admixed
with aboriginal elements, play a very large part
indeed in the manifestations of Irish genius.

It would be of some interest to classify our
eminent persons into groups according to their
activities and to note the district in which each
group tends to predominate. Appendix B will
enable the reader to examine into this matter
for himself. As might be expected, politicians,
divines, and men of letters abound in all parts

* Cuchulain of Muirthemne , p. 256.

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

of the kingdom. It is curious to note that
great lawyers are also scattered over the whole
kingdom with notable impartiality. While poets
are to be found everywhere, they are distinctly
more predominant in the south of England, and
to a less extent in Wales and the Welsh border
counties ; but when we consider the origins of
those English poets who are unanimously recog¬
nised to stand first, we find them scattered over
the whole country as widely apart as possible,
Chaucer probably in Suffolk, Spenser in Lanca¬
shire, Shakespeare in Warwickshire, Milton in
Oxfordshire, Wordsworth in Yorkshire, Shelley
in Sussex, Keats in Devon or Cornwall.

In science Scotland stands very high, Ireland
extremely low. The distribution of scientific men

is as follows :

English . 84

Welsh ..... 2

Scotch ..... 21

Irish ...... 1

Scotch-English .... 7

Scotch-Irish .... 2

English-Irish .... 1

English-German .... 1

English-Dutch .... 1

In order to realise the extraordinary preponder-

NATIONALITY AND RACE.

ance of the Scotch over the Irish contingent, it
must be remembered that until the present
century the population of Ireland has been much
larger than that of Scotland, and it may be noted
that the one purely Irish man of science (Tyndall)
was of original English origin.

If we proceed to consider the distribution of
English men of science in the four distinct eth¬
nological regions to which reference has already
been made, we find that six belong more or less
to the East Anglian focus, five to the South¬
western focus, four to the Welsh Border region,
and seven to the large Anglo-Danish district.

It is of interest to compare these results with those
obtained by Galton in the case of his modern English
men of science ( English Men of Science , pp. 18, 21). He
found that three-fourths were English. Of every ten,
there were :

5 Pure English.

1 Anglo- Welsh.

1 Anglo-Irish.

1 Scotch.

1 Included Anglo-Scotch, Scotch-Irish, pure Irish,
Welsh, Manx and Channel Islands.

1 Unclassed, including mixture of English, French,
German, Creole, Dutch, Swedish, etc.

“On an analysis of the scientific status of the men on
my list,” he remarks, “it appeared to me that their

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

ability is higher in proportion to their numbers among
those of pure race.5’

This may be said to be in agreement with my results,
which necessarily deal with men of a higher average order
of ability, and which show a very much smaller propor¬
tion of individuals of mixed race, though in part this
difference may be accounted for by the greater precision
of Mr. Galton’s information in relation to his cases. He
further points out that the birthplace of his men of science
is usually in towns, away from the coast, and he presents
a geographical diagram which shows the distribution.
This diagram is of interest, for it shows with great pre¬
cision the fallacy of birthplace as any true indication
of the real distribution of ability. Nearly the whole of
both the East-Anglian and south-western foci of genius
are in this diagram left bare of scientific ability.

4 4 The whole of the Eastern Counties,” Mr. Galton
remarks, 44 and the huge triangle at whose angles Hast¬
ings, Worcester, and Exeter, or rather Exmouth, are situ¬
ated, are very deficient in aboriginal science.” That the
deficiency is very far from being 44 aboriginal,” becomes
sufficiently clear when we are careful to ignore the
accident of birthplace in determining the origins of men
of science.

Psychologically it is not difficult to detect a
distinct character in English scientific genius,
according as it springs from the Anglo-Danish
district or the East Anglian focus or the south¬
western focus, although I am not aware that
this has been pointed out before. The Anglo-
Danish district may here be fairly put first, not

NATIONALITY AND RACE.

6 9

only on account of the large number of scientific
men it has wholly or in part produced, but also
on account of the very high eminence of some
among them. The Anglo-Dane appears to pos¬
sess an aptitude for mathematics which is not
shared by the native of any other English dis¬
trict as a whole, and it is in the exact sciences
that the Anglo-Dane triumphs.* Newton is the
supreme figure of Anglo-Danish science ; it will
be noted that he belongs to the East Anglian
border, and by his mother is claimed by Rutland,
a little county which, I am inclined to think,
really belongs psychologically and perhaps ethno-
logically to East Anglia. The combination of
the Anglo-Dane and the East Anglian seems
highly favourable to scientific aptitude ; the ab¬
stracting tendency of the Anglo-Dane, and the
exaggerated independence of his character, with
the difficulty he finds in taking any other point
of view than his own, are happily tempered by
the more cautious and flexible mind of the East
Anglian. Darwin (who also belonged to the
Welsh Border) belonged in part, like Newton, to
the East Anglian border of the Anglo-Danish dis¬
trict, and also (somewhat remotely) to Norfolk,
a county which contains many Danish elements.

* The mathematical tendencies of Cambridge are due to the fact that
Cambridge drains the ability of nearly the whole Anglo-Danish district.

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

The science of the Anglo-Danish district is not
exclusively mathematical, and geology especially
owes much to the Anglo-Dane ; it will be remem¬
bered that geology was one of the first sciences
to attract Darwin.

The East Anglian is in scientific matters drawn
to the concrete, and shows little or no mathe¬
matical aptitude. He is a natural historian in
the widest sense. He delights in the patient
collection of facts, and seeks to sift, describe,
co-ordinate, and classify them. In his hands
science becomes almost an art. Gilbert illus¬
trates East Anglian scientific methods in the
inorganic world, Ray in the organic, and Francis
Bacon, though he cannot himself be classed
among men of science, has in the Novum Organum
and elsewhere presented a picture of scientific
method as it most naturally appears to the East
Anglian mind.

It is not easy to see anything specific or defi¬
nitely Brythonic in the scientific activities of the
Welsh Border. At most it may be said that there
is some tendency for science here to take on a
technological character and to become associated
with the artistic crafts. The scientific men found
here often belong only in part to the district, and
many of them seem to possess the psychological
characters of the south-western focus.

NATIONALITY AND RACE.

7 1

The scientific characters of the south-western
focus are quite clear, and definitely distinct from
those of either the Anglo-Danish district or the
East Anglian focus. What we find here is the
mechanical impulse, and more especially the
physiological temper, the instinct to seek out
the driving forces of vital phenomena. It is
on this account that Harvey, though of Kentish
family, may be said to belong psychologically to
this focus, as also Stephen Hales, though he
belonged partly to Kent and partly to East
Anglia. The great scientific physicians belong
here (the surgeons are largely East Anglian), with
Sydenham at the head and Glisson. Huxley,
again, is a typical figure. Inventors are numerous,
for the scientific men of this region have fre¬
quently been enamoured of practical problems,
and just as they have been pioneers in the physical
world, so in science they have sought rather to
make discoveries than to formulate laws. Thus
in astronomy we have Adams, and one of the
greatest and most typical scientific men of this
region was Thomas Young.

When we consider the distribution of great
soldiers, we find the following results

English ...... 22

Welsh . a

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

Irish

Scotch . >

English-Scotch
English-Irish .
Scotch-Irish

Within England seven belong to the Anglo-Danish
district, six to the East Anglian focus, five to the
south-western focus, and four to the Welsh Border.
In England itself, it will be seen, military genius
is relatively less pronounced than in any other
part of the British Islands, and what absolute
numerical preponderance the English element
possesses seems to be due exclusively to the earlier
periods of English history ; the line of great
English generals apparently ended with Marl¬
borough. The Scotch stand easily at the head ;
the Irish would take a much higher place if we
considered the nineteenth century separately.

When, however, we turn to the distribution of
great sailors, a very different result is shown, and
the position of English ability is more than re¬
asserted. While England has produced as many
as 29 great sailors, only two are Scotch, one
English-Scotch, one English- Welsh and none
Irish. Within England, eleven belong to the
south-western focus, ten to the Anglo-Danish dis¬
trict and more especially to its southern border in

NATIONALITY AND RACE.

Lincolnshire, four to the East Anglian focus and
four to the Welsh Border.

The distribution of artists (including sculptors
and architects as well as painters) is as follows :

English .

. 51

Welsh

• 3

Scotch

. 10

Irish

• 5

English- Welsh

English-Scotch

Scotch-Irish

English-French

English-German

English-Italian

English- Russian

Within England we find that eighteen are scat¬
tered over the large Anglo-Danish district, more
than a third of these, however, belonging to the
small county of Nottinghamshire, twelve are East
Anglian, eight belong to the south-west, six to
the Welsh Border.

The fertility of Nottinghamshire — a county not other¬
wise notably productive of genius — in artists is a pheno¬
menon of some interest in view of the fact that Notting¬
hamshire was a great art-centre in the fourteenth century,
when its “ alablasterers ” sent re-tables, screens and

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

figure-panels to all parts of Western Europe. ( Archi¬
tectural Review , April, 1903, p. 143.) It would be idle to
see here the influences of tradition ; we cannot suppose
that there was any continuity of this kind between the
fourteenth century alablasterers and nineteenth century
painters, the possibility of such continuity having been
absolutely destroyed by the Reformation. The reason¬
able supposition is that we see here a native bent to art
showing itself at one time in one form, at another time
in another form.

I have elsewhere (Monthly Review , March, 1902) dis¬
cussed some interesting points in the distribution of
British artists, and have shown how the painters of the
east coast differ essentially from those of the west.

A very definite case of special distribution of
ability, differing markedly from the distribution
of ability generally, is furnished by great actors
and actresses. So far as it can be traced this
distribution is as follows : —

English .... 23

Welsh . 1

Irish ...... 6

English- Welsh ..... 1

English-Scotch ..... 1

English-Irish ..... 6

English-French 1

Irish-French ..... 1

English-Irish-French-Swiss . . 1

English-Danish 1

NATIONALITY AND RACE.

7 5

It will be seen that the Scotch virtually do not
appear at all, and that the relative preponderance
of the Irish is enormous. Our knowledge of the
ancestry of actors is peculiarly vague and uncer¬
tain, and it is highly probable that if our knowledge
on this point were more precise the preponderance
of the Irish element, at the expense of the English
element, would be still greater. The distribution
of actors within England, so far as we are able to
trace it, further illustrates the poverty of the
more specifically English districts in dramatic
ability of a high order. Four of our great actors
and actresses belong more or less to the south¬
western focus, four to the Welsh Border, three to
the East Anglian focus, and only two to the
whole Anglo-Danish district.

I do not propose to discuss here the various causes
which have led to the special distribution of genius in
the British Islands, and to the variations in distribution
shown by different kinds of genius. While many of the
characters thus revealed are evidently due to racial
characteristics, it would be rash to assume that they may
all thus be accounted for. We have also to take into
account environmental conditions. It is not easy to
make an exact comparison on this basis before the nine¬
teenth century. The careful study of the condition of
England made by Joseph Fletcher, secretary of the
Statistical Society, on the basis of the census of 1841,
conveniently enables us to make various comparisons
for this period, and we may be fairly certain that the

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

conditions then prevailing had existed during a consider¬
ably earlier period.

When, on this basis, we examine the various counties,
there would appear to be a tendency to correlation
between fertility in genius and (i) amount of real property
per head of population ; (2) deficiency of persons of inde¬
pendent means ; (3) amount of ignorance (Norfolk is
among the seven most ignorant counties, while Suffolk
and Hertfordshire are also among the ignorant counties) ;

(4) commitals for serious offences against the person
(Norfolk is at this period the most criminal county in
this respect, being in relation to population 80 per cent,
above average, while Huntingdonshire, with little genius,
has the least criminality, being 63 per cent, below aver¬
age) j (5) bastardy (the four counties with largest pro¬
portion of illegitimate children being Cumberland, Here¬
ford, Norfolk and Nottinghamshire).

On the other hand there appears to be no tendency to
correlation between fertility in genius and (1) offences
against property (excluding the “ malicious 5 5 group
which are included in offences against the person) ; (2)
assaults ; (3) improvident marriages ; (4) pauperism ;

(5) density of population ; (6) crime (general commit¬
ments) ; (7) amount of deposits in savings banks per head
of population.

While such comparisons are at various points of much
interest and possibly of real significance, it must be
remembered that though it is highly probable that there
is a real connection between genius and the conditions
prevailing in its environment, we must not here too
hastily assume such a connection. It may be added
that we should also have to take into consideration the
conditions prevailing in the birthplaces of men of genius,
which are not always the places of their origin.

III.

SOCIAL CLASS.

Status of parents of British men of genius — Upper Class — Yeomen and
Farmers — Clergy — Medicine — Law — Army — Navy — Miscellaneous Profes¬
sions — Commercial Classes — Crafts — Artisans and Unskilled — The
parentage of artists — The parentage of actors — How far change has taken
place in the social composition of the genius-producing class — Comparison
of the genius-producing classes with the ordinary population.

In considering to what social classes the 1,030
eminent British men and women on our list belong,
we naturally seek to ascertain the position of the
fathers. In 201 cases it has not been easy to
pronounce definitely on this point, and I have,
therefore, omitted these cases as doubtful. The
remainder may be classed with a fair degree of
certainty. I find that they fall into the following
groups : —

Per cent.

Upper classes (or “ good family ”) 154 18.5

Yeomen and farmers. . 50 6

Church . 139 16.7

Law . 59 7.1

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

Per cent.

Army .

4.2

Navy (and sea generally)

i-9

Medicine .

3-6

Miscellaneous professions .

7.8

Officials, clerks, etc. .

3-2

Commercial . . . .

156

18.8

Crafts .....

9.2

Artisans and unskilled

2-5

In some thirty cases the status

of the

father

is entered under two heads, but, as a rule,
it has seemed sufficient to state what may be
presumed to be the father’s chief occupation at
the time when his eminent child was born.

In the order in which I have placed the groups
they may be said to constitute a kind of hierarchy.
I place the yeomen and farmers immediately
after the Upper Class group, although at one end
this group includes the peasant-farmer.* Until
recent years, the man who lived on the land
which had belonged to his family for many cen¬
turies, occupied a position not essentially different
from that of the more noble families with some-

* The yeoman may be defined as an owner-cultivator ; the farmer may be
only a tenant. The poet Crabbe in 1791 visited his wife’s uncle, a Suffolk
yeoman, called Tovell, to whom he refers as “the first-rate yeoman of that
period — the yeoman that already began to be styled by courtesy an esquire.
Mr. Tovell might possess an estate of some eight hundred pounds per annum,
a portion of which he himself cultivated.”

SOCIAL CLASS.

what larger estates around him. Even at the
present day, in remote parts of the country, it is
not difficult to meet men who live on the land on
farms which have belonged to their ancestors
through several centuries. Such aristocrats of the
soil, thus belonging to “ old families,” frequently
have all the characteristics of fine country gentle¬
men, and in former days the line of demarcation
between them and the “ upper class ” must often
have been difficult to draw. I have formed my
“ upper class ” group in a somewhat exclusive
spirit ; I have not included in it the very large
body of eminent men who are said to belong to
“ old families ” ; these I have mostly allowed
to fall out as “ doubtful,” but there is good reason
to believe that a considerable proportion really
belong to the class of small country gentlemen
on the borderland between the aristocracy in the
narrow sense and the yeoman and farmer class.
To this class, therefore, must be attributed a very
important part in the production of the men who
have furnished the characteristics of British civi¬
lization.

The same must be said of the clergy, whom I
place next, because they are largely drawn from
the same ranks and have on the whole led very
similar lives. (With the clergy I have included
thirty-two ministers of religion belonging to very

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

various denominations.) The religious movements
of the past century have altogether transformed
the lives of the clergy, but until recent years
the parson was usually simply a country gentleman
or farmer somewhat better educated, and more in
touch with intellectual tastes and pursuits. The
proportion of distinguished men and women contri¬
buted from among the families of the clergy can
only be described as enormous. In mere number
the clergy can seldom have equalled the butchers or
bakers in their parishes, yet only two butchers and
four bakers are definitely ascertained to have pro¬
duced eminent children, as against 139 parsons.
Even if we compare the Church with the other
professions with which it is most usually classed,
we find that the eminent children of the clergy
considerably outnumber those of lawyers, doctors
and army officers put together. This preponder¬
ance is the more remarkable when we remember
that (although I have certainly included eminent
illegitimate children of priests) it is only within
the last three and a half centuries that the clergy
have been free to compete in this field.

It is of interest to note that genius is not the only form
of mental anomaly which is produced more frequently
by the clergy than by any other social class. The clerical
profession, as Langdon Down pointed out many years
ago, also produces more idiots than any other class.

SOCIAL CLASS.

8 1

Law, Medicine, and the Army and Navy furnish
contingents which, though very much smaller than
that of the Church, are sufficiently important to
be grouped separately, but all the remaining pro¬
fessions I have thrown into a single group. These
are : Artists (painters, sculptors, engravers, archi¬
tects), 20 ; Actors, etc., 16 ; Musicians, Com¬
posers, etc., 9 ; Men of Letters, 6 ; Schoolmasters,
7 ; Engineers, Surveyors and Accountants, 4 ;
Men of Science, 3. Although so few of the fathers
of eminent men can be described professionally
as men of letters or men of science, it must be
added that in a considerable number of cases
literary or scientific aptitudes were present in
the parents.

We now reach a group of altogether different
character, Trade. It is a group of great magni¬
tude, but its size is due to the inevitable inclusion
of a very large number of avocations under a
single heading. These avocations range from
banking to inn-keeping. The bankers evidently
form the aristocracy of the trading class, and a
remarkable number, considering the smallness of
the class (not less than 12), have been the fathers
of eminent sons. Under the rather vague head¬
ing of “ merchants ” we find 25, and there are
at least nine “ manufacturers.” Wine merchants,
brewers, vintners, publicans and others connected

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

with the sale or production of alcoholic liquors
have yielded as many as 16 distinguished sons,
who have often attained a high degree of eminence,
from Chaucer to Joule. Tea and coffee are only
responsible for one each. There are eight drapers,
mercers and hosiers, and six tailors and hatters ;
grocers and a great number of other shop-keeping
trades count at most three or four eminent men
each. It is, perhaps, noteworthy that at least four
Lord Mayors of London have been the fathers of
distinguished sons ; only one of them (Gresham)
attained fame in business, the others becoming
men of letters and scholars. It must be added
in regard to this group that in a certain number
of cases the particular “ trade ” or “ business ”
of the father is not specified.

The group which I have denominated “ Crafts ”
is closely related to that of “ Trade/' and in
many cases it is difficult or impossible to decide
whether an occupation should be entered under
one or the other head. But, speaking generally,
there is a very clear distinction between the two
groups. For success in the essentially commercial
avocations is involved, above all, financial ability ;
the crafts are essentially manual, and success
here involves more of the qualities of the artist
than of the tradesman. Just as the banker is
the typical representative of commercial trans-

SOCIAL CLASS.

actions, so the carpenter stands at the head of
the crafts. There seems to be something pecu¬
liar in the life or aptitudes of the carpenter especi¬
ally favourable to the production of intellectual
children, for this association has occurred as many
as thirteen times, while there are four builders.
No other craft approaches the carpenter in this
respect ; there are five shoemakers, five cloth-
workers, five weavers (all belonging to the early
phase of industrial development before factories),
five goldsmiths and jewellers, four blacksmiths,
while many other handicrafts are mentioned once
or twice.

Finally , we reach the group of parents engaged in
some unskilled work, and, therefore, belonging
to the lowest social class. It is the smallest
of all the groups, and, though including some
notable persons, it can scarcely be said to be a
pre-eminently distinguished group. As many as
eight of the parents were common soldiers, the
rest mostly agricultural labourers.

It may be interesting to inquire whether our
eminent men, when grouped according to the
station and avocation of their fathers, show any
marked group-characters ; whether, in other
words, the occupation of the father exercises an
influence on the nature and direction of the intel¬
lectual aptitudes of the son. To some extent it

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

does exercise such an influence. It is true that
there are eminent men of very various kinds in all
of these groups. But there is yet a clearly visible
tendency for certain kinds of ability to fall into
certain groups. It is not surprising that there
should be a tendency for the son to follow the
profession of the father. Nor is it surprising
that a great number of statesmen should be found
in the upper class group. Men of letters are
yielded by every class, perhaps especially by the
clergy, but Shakespeare and, it is probable, Milton
belonged to the families of yeomen. The sons of
lawyers, one notes, even to a greater extent than
the eminent men of “ upper class ” birth, eventu¬
ally find themselves in the House of Lords, and
not always as lawyers. The two groups of Army
and Medicine are numerically close together, but
in other respects very unlike. The sons of army
men form a very brilliant and versatile group,
and include a large proportion of great soldiers ;
the sons of doctors do not show a single eminent
doctor, and if it were not for the presence of
two men of the very first rank — Darwin and
Landor — they would constitute a comparatively
mediocre group.

Painters and sculptors constitute a group which
appears to be of very distinct interest from the
point of view of occupational heredity. In social

SOCIAL CLASS.

origin, it may be noted, the group differs strikingly
in constitution from the general body, in which
the upper class is almost or quite predominant.
Of 63 painters and sculptors of definitely known
origin, only two can be placed in the aristocratic
division. Of the remainder 7 are the sons of
artists, 22 the sons of craftsmen, leaving only
32 for all other occupations, which are mainly
of lower middle class character, and in many
cases trades that are very closely allied to crafts.
Even, however, when we omit the trades as well
as the cases in which the fathers were artists, we
find a very notable predominance of craftsmen
in the parentage of painters, to such an extent in¬
deed that while craftsman only constitute 9.2 per
cent, among the fathers of our eminent persons
generally, they constitute nearly 35 per cent,
among the fathers of the painters and sculptors.
It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that there
is a real connection between the father’s aptitude
for craftmanship and the son’s aptitude for art.
To suppose that environment adequately accounts
for this relationship is an inadmissible theory.
The association between the crafts of builder,
carpenter, tanner, jeweller, watchmaker, wood-
carver, rope-maker, etc., and the painter’s art is
small at the best, and in most cases non-existent.
Nor, on the other hand, is there any reason what-

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

ever to conclude that the fathers have acquired
manual dexterity which the sons have inherited
and put to finer use. Without reverting to the
hypothesis of the inheritance of acquired charac¬
teristics, we may well suppose that among crafts¬
men there is a natural selection of individuals
possessing special dexterity of hand, and this ten¬
dency to manual skill would tend to be inherited.
Such a supposition would adequately account for
the phenomena which meet us in the present in¬
vestigation. That there is physical selection in
occupations we know to be the case, so that, as
Beddoe has shown, butchers tend to be fair and
shoemakers to be dark.

It may be noted that Arreat (Psychologie du Peintre ,
1892, Ch. 11), in investigating the heredity of 200 emi¬
nent European painters, reached results that are closely
similar to those I have reached in my smaller purely
British group. He found that very few were of upper
class social rank, and these not usually among the most
important, while nearly two-thirds of the whole number
were found to be the sons either of painters or of workers
in some art or craft. He refers to the special frequency
of jewellers among the fathers. I may remark that in
my list, working jewellers and watchmakers occurred
twice, a small number, but relatively large considering
that there are only three fathers of this occupation in
the total parentage of British men of ability.

The group of painters and sculptors differs widely,

SOCIAL CLASS.

as we have seen, so far as the social and occupa¬
tional status of their fathers is concerned, from
the general composition of the whole group of
eminent persons. The group of actors and ac¬
tresses, however, reverses altogether the conclu¬
sions we reach from contemplating the entire
group. While good social class and leisurely
cultivated life among the parents would seem on
the whole to be of decided advantage for the pro¬
duction of eminent offspring, among actors and
actresses low and obscure birth would seem to be
a positive advantage. At least three or four were
illegitimate children, while in numerous other
cases we are led to infer that this was probably
the case. Of the thirty whose origin is known,
four and probably more — a very large proportion
considering the smallness of the unskilled class — can
be set down as the children of unskilled labourers
or common soldiers, eleven are the children of
actors, while the rest mainly belong to miscel¬
laneous and often somewhat unskilled occupations.
Only six can be assigned to the whole group of
professions (excluding the actor's profession), and
only one can be said to belong to the upper class,
Booth being the son of an impoverished squire
with aristocratic connections. It is not difficult
to account for this state of things. The some¬
what unbalanced and excessively impressionable

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

nervous system which is apt to result from ille¬
gitimate birth, or birth under abnormally Bohe¬
mian conditions, the poverty, irregularity, and
manifold changes of occupation to which so many
great actors and actresses have been subjected in
early life, usually among varied and often low
social strata, the absence of training and educa¬
tion in formal knowledge and conventional con¬
duct, combined with the abundant opportunity
of becoming familiar with the most naturally
dramatic section of the community — all these and
other characteristics which have tended to mark
the early lives of great actors and actresses, would
tend to fit them for the histrionic profession and
to unfit them for any other field in which natural
ability may be shown.

There is some interest in considering separately
the eminent persons in my list, 81 in number,
who died in the period during which the Dictionary
of National Biography was being produced, and are
therefore included in the Supplement. These may
be expected to give us some indication as to the
direction in which we may now look for our
eminent men. So far as can be judged, however,
from so small a group, the social composition re¬
mains exactly the same. The aristocratic element
is still very large. The most notable difference is
that Commerce (represented by 18 individuals)

SOCIAL CLASS.

has gained on the Church (which is represented
by only 11) ; the Church has fallen to the pro¬
portion of less than 14 per cent., the general pro¬
portion of the Church for the whole period being
16.7 per cent. ; and Commerce has risen to over
22 per cent, as against 18.8. Whether the rela¬
tive ability-producing powers of the clergy and
the commercial classes have changed, or whether,
as is possible, the clergy now constitute a smaller
and the commercial classes a larger element in
the general population, is a question I do not
undertake to answer. The quota produced by
the medical profession has relatively risen, and
that produced by the legal profession fallen (being
only represented by one individual). More sig¬
nificant is the fact that the crafts instead of
producing over nine per cent, have not produced
one of this latest group of eminent men, while
(unless the reticence of the national biographers
is at fault) the artisan and unskilled classes have
been equally unproductive. It would appear
that the ability-producing powers of the com¬
munity are becoming narrowed on what is mainly
a mixed aristocratic and commercial basis.

In order to realise the significance of our results
it is necessary to bear in mind the class con¬
stitution of the ordinary population in Great
Britain. According to the Anthropological Com-

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

mittee of the British Association, this may be
stated as follows : —

Professional classes
Commercial classes
Industrial classes
Artisans
Labourers

4.46 per cent.
10.36 „

10.90 „

26.82 „

4746 „

The comparison with the class of ability-producing
persons is interesting. We have two pyramids,
but the base of the one corresponds with the
apex of the other, the same inverted relationship
existing harmoniously throughout. The aristo¬
cratic class which forms the foundation of the
ability-producing pyramid (though this fact is
slightly disguised by the omission from my list
of hereditary peers) forms the fine and invisible
apex of the pyramid constituted by the ordinary
population. The professional class which (often
in close association with the aristocratic class)
forms the great bulk of the one pyramid still
merely appears as the apex of the other. The
commercial class also bulks more largely in the
ability-producing pyramid, but to a much less
extravagant extent. The industrial class (or
craftsmen) which comes in the middle furnishes
about the same proportion in each case, while the
artisans and labourers who form nearly three-

SOCIAL CLASS.

quarters of the general population appear among
the ability-producing persons as a vanishing
point almost as negligible as the aristocratic class
is among the general population.

This is not altogether an unexpected result, though it
has not before been shown to hold good for the entire
field of the intellectual ability of a country. Maclean’s
statistical study of the origins of British men of ability
during the nineteenth century shows that 26 per cent, of
those of known origin were sons of “ aristocrats, officials,
etc.” ; 16 per cent, were sons of clergymen ; 15 per

cent, sons of farmers, tradesmen, artisans, etc. ; 9 per
cent, of military and naval officers ; 9 per cent, of
business men ; 5 per cent, of medical men ; 4 per cent,
of lawyers, etc. The result was almost identical when
the 100 men of pre-eminent ability were considered
separately.

C. H. Cooley ( Annals of American Academy , May, 1897)
investigated the point in regard to a group of distinguished
European poets, philosophers, and men of letters, and
found that 45 belonged to the upper and upper middle
classes, 24 to the lower middle class, and only 2 to the
lower class.

Odin, in a laborious though not always very illumina¬
tive study of French genius (Gcnese des Grands Hommes ,
vol. II., table 31), found that 623 talented people of
letters, so far as the position of their parents was known,
could be classed as : nobility, 25.5 per cent. ; magis-
trature, 30 per cent. ; liberal professions, 23 per cent. ;
middle class, 11.6 per cent. ; industrial class, 9.8 per
cent.

Galton, among 107 recent English men of science

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

( English Men of Science , 1874, p. 22), found, as might
be anticipated, that the aristocratic element was smaller,
only 8.4 per cent. ; but the allied professional class
(army, navy, civil service, church, medicine, law, etc.)
accounted for as much as 48.5 per cent. ; while the com¬
mercial class furnished nearly all the rest, 40.1.

One is tempted to ask how far the industrial
progress of the nineteenth century, the growth
of factories, the development of urban life, will
alter the conditions affecting the production of
eminent men. It seems clear that, taking English
history as a whole, the conditions of rural life
have, from the present point of view, produced the
best stocks. The minor aristocracy and the clergy
— the “ gentlemen ” of England — living on the soil
in the open air, in a life of independence at once
laborious and leisurely, have been able to give
their children good opportunities for develop¬
ment, while at the same time they have not
been able to dispense them from the necessity
of work. Thus, at all events, it has been in the
past. How it will be in the future is a question
which the data before us in no way help to answer.
So far as can be seen, the changing conditions of
life have as yet made no change in the conditions
required for producing genius. Life in the old
towns formerly fertile in intellectual ability —
towns like Edinburgh, Norwich, Ipswich and

SOCIAL CLASS.

Plymouth — was altogether unlike life in our
modern urban centres, and there is yet no sign
that the latter will equal the former in genius-
producing power. Nor is there any sign that the
education of the proletariat will lead to a new
development of eminent men ; the lowest class
in Great Britain, so far as the data before us
show, has not exhibited any recent tendency to
a higher yield of genius, and what production

it is accountable for remains rural rather than
urban.

IV.

HEREDITY AND PARENTAGE.

The tendency to heredity in intellectual ability — Inheritance of ability
equally frequent through father and mother — Mental abnormality in the
parents — Size of the families to which persons of eminent ability belong —
Normal standards of comparison —Genius-producing families tend to be
large — Men of ability tend to be the offspring of predominantly boy-
producing parents — Women of ability perhaps tend to belong to girl-
producing parents — Position in the family of the child of genius —
Tendency of men of ability to be youngest and more especially eldest
children — The age of the parents of eminent persons at their birth —
Tendency to disparity of age in the parents.

The heredity of intellectual genius has been very
fully discussed, with special reference to eminent
persons of British birth, by Mr. Francis Galton,
especially in his Hereditary Genius. With, per¬
haps, even an excess of zeal — for persons of some¬
what minor degrees of ability have sometimes
been taken into account — Mr. Galton has shown
that intellectual ability has frequently tended to
run in families. If this hereditary tendency is
by no means omnipresent, the present data prove
conclusively that it is a very real factor. Not¬
withstanding that the effects of hereditary posi-

HEREDITY AND PARENTAGE.

tion have been so far as possible excluded, and
that our lists only contain persons of pre-eminent
ability, distributed over fifteen centuries, it is
yet found that among these 1,030 persons there
are 41 groups, of two or three individuals in each
group, who are closely related. The recognized
relationships are father and son (the Arnolds,
Bacon with his two sons, the Boyles, the Can¬
nings, the Coleridges, the Copleys, the Grenvilles,
the Lyttons, the Mathewses, the Mills, the Penns,
the Pitts, the Walpoles, the Wilberforces),
brother and brother (the Herberts, the Lawrences,
the Napiers, the Nasmyths, the Newmans, the
Scotts, the Veres, the Wesleys, the Wordsworths),
brother and sister (the Arnes, the Carpenters, the
Kembles, the Martineaus, the Rossettis), sister
and sister (the Brontes). The relationship be¬
tween grandchildren and grandparents, and be¬
tween uncles (or aunts) and nephews (or nieces)
is best shown in a table.

Paternal Grandfather.

Maternal Grandfather.

Jevons

Roscoe

Darwin

E. Darwin

Wedgwood

Donne

J. Heywood

Sidney

Third Earl of Shaftesbury

First Eajl of Shaftes¬
bury

Duke of Northumber¬
land

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

Paternal Uncle
or Aunt.

Maternal Uncle
or Aunt.

J. Baillie

Hunter

Beddoes

M. Edgeworth

G. Bentham

J. Bentham

Brougham

Robertson

Burnet

Lord Warriston

W. Hook

T. Hook

j F. A. Kemble

J J. M. Kemble

j S. Siddons
l J. P. Kemble

M. Kingsley

C. Kingsley

C. J. Mathews

F. M. Kelly

j Christopher Wordsworth
l Charles Wordsworth

W. Wordsworth

It will be observed that Darwin has the
unique distinction of possessing, within the nar¬
row degrees of relationship here recognised, both
a paternal and a maternal ancestor of the high
degree of eminence required for inclusion in my
list.

The table just presented is of considerable in¬
terest because it helps us to answer the question
as to the degree in which genius may be inherited
in the female line. A consideration of direct
heredity has no bearing on this question ; a man
inherits genius from his father more often than

HEREDITY AND PARENTAGE.

from his mother for the simple reason that genius
is rare in women. We reach a juster conclusion
if we consider those cases in which the heredity
is one degree removed, and then note whether
it is transmitted more often in the male or in
the female line. All such cases in my list are
included in the table just given, and we are thus
enabled to see that, considering the smallness of
the numbers with which we are dealing, the sexual
partition of the heredity is as equal as we could
possibly hope to expect. A man is just as likely
to inherit ability through his mother as through
his father.

It will be noted that in the case of the four poets
included in this table (Donne, Sidney, J. Baillie, Beddoes),
the heredity was in every case maternal. This would at
first sight seem to confirm the conclusion of Mobius
that a poet’s heredity is from his mother. It must
be added, however, that in most of these four cases
there was also an unusual degree of ability in the father,
while only in one case was the eminent maternal relative
a poet.

It is held by some that artistic genius is very rarely
inherited in any high degree. Thus Max Muller wrote
(Autobiography , p. 34) : “ It seems almost as if the artistic
talent was exhausted by one generation or one individual,”
and he specially instances the rarity of eminent musicians
who are the children of eminent musicians, the case of
the Bachs being no true exception since music before J. S.
Bach was usually simply a kind of craft. It is true that

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

not a single eminent musical composer (not a large group,
be it noted) occurs in the list of related persons given
above, but there are representatives of other arts, though
not to any notably large extent. It is probable that what¬
ever truth lies in the statement that high artistic ability
is not inheritable may be reduced to the larger statement
that “ talent ” is more inheritable than “ genius.” The
distinction between “ genius ” and “ talent ” is, however,
one that is extremely difficult to make, and we shall not
be concerned with this question in the present volume.

It is scarcely necessary to remark that in a
very large number of cases the pre-eminent per¬
sons in our list were nearly related to eminent
persons who have not reached the degree of dis¬
tinction entitling them to appear in the list.
Here an objective test is less easy to apply. The
test I have adopted is the statement of the
national biographers in referring to such relation¬
ship. The results of an inquiry on this basis
distinctly confirm the result already reached as
to the equal inheritance of intellectual ability on
the paternal and maternal sides. Avoiding any
summation of the results until the two lists of
eminent relations were finally completed, it was
found that the numbers on each side were exactly
equal On the father’s side there were forty-four
intellectually eminent relations, not including
the father himself, and an exactly equal number
on the mother’s side. It is scarcely necessary

HEREDITY AND PARENTAGE.

to point out that these numbers do not even ap¬
proximately represent the total number of emi¬
nent relations, for relationship to one eminent
person often involves relationship to a whole
family of eminent persons ; they merely serve
to show that when the eminent near relations of
an eminent man are impartially noted, such rela¬
tions are just as often through the mother as
through the father.

I have also noted every case in which it is
stated or implied that one or other, or both, of
the parents possessed an unusual amount of in¬
tellectual ability, by no means necessarily in¬
volving any degree whatever of “ eminence.”
These cases are very numerous, and as such
ability may often have been displayed in very
unobtrusive ways, it must frequently have es¬
caped the attention of the national biographers.
In 150 cases the father showed such ability ; in
89 cases the mother is noted as of unusual ability,
or else as being closely related to some person of
eminent ability presumed to have transmitted an
intellectual aptitude, whether or not she showed
marked signs of such aptitude herself. In 21 of
these cases both the father and the mother pro¬
bably transmitted intellectual aptitudes. Over
20 per cent, of our 1,030 eminent persons have
certainly inherited intellectual aptitudes. Bearing

IOO

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

in mind that in many cases the aptitudes of the
parents are unknown or have passed unnoticed,
and that in other cases the national biographers
have failed to record known facts, it is not improb¬
able that the proportion of cases in which one or
other of the parents of our 1,030 eminent persons
displayed more than average intellectual ability
may be at least doubled.

A more probable estimate of the real frequency
of heredity may be obtained by considering sepa¬
rately the very recent and better known indivi¬
duals who appear in the Supplement of the Dic¬
tionary of National Biography. Of the 81 eminent
persons, thus incorporated in my list, who died
while the Dictionary was in progress, it is found
that in the case of 33 the father, the mother, or
both are noted as being persons of unusual ability.
This is equal to a proportion of about 40 per cent.,
or the proportion in which, on independent
grounds, I have already suggested as representing
the probable amount of inherited ability. Even
for the modern group, however, we must still
suppose the data to be incomplete.

From another point of view the consideration
of this modern group is of interest in the light
it throws on the question of heredity. I find that
among the 38 able parents of the 33 eminent per¬
sons who may be supposed to have inherited

HEREDITY AND PARENTAGE.

IOI

ability, the sexual division comes out as exactly
equal ; that is to say, that there are 19 able
fathers and 19 able mothers. This would seem
to indicate very clearly that, although that super¬
lative degree of ability which is commonly termed
“ genius ” is rare in woman, yet a more than
average degree of ability in the mother is just
as important from the point of view of intellectual
heredity as a more than average degree of ability
in the father.

Among modern English scientific men Galton (English
Men of Science, p. 72) has also found that ability is just
as likely to be inherited through the female as through
the male line. Among 100 scientific men, on the paternal
side he found 34 grandfathers and uncles of ability,
on the maternal side 37. As in my results, there would
seem to be an excess, if any, on the maternal side.

In determining the parents who possessed
ability I have taken no note of the cases in which
it is merely said that the father or the mother
possessed “ poetic tastes,” “ musical tastes,” etc.,
but only of those cases in which it is clearly
stated or implied that there was unusual ability.
Such “ ability ” in most cases by no means in¬
volved recognised “ distinction.” As a matter
of fact only one of the 81 had a parent of the
same degree of eminence as himself, i. e., sufficiently

102

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

eminent to be included in my list. So that while
the proportion of eminent persons with an “ able ”
parent approaches one in two, the proportion of
eminent persons possessing a parent equally
“ distinguished ” with themselves is only one in
81. This proportion of eminent parents is shown
not to be very far astray by reference to the
whole body of individuals on my list, among
whom there are fifteen possessing a parent of
sufficient eminence to be included in the list, or
about one in seventy. If we lowered the standard
of distinction demanded in the parents the pro¬
portion would of course be raised.

It would be interesting to inquire into the
moral and emotional qualities, the “ character,”
of the parents. This, however, is extremely diffi¬
cult and I have not attempted it. In a great
many cases the mother was a woman of marked
piety, and we are frequently led to infer an un¬
usual degree of character, sometimes on the part
of the mother, sometimes of the father. Moral
qualities are quite as essential to most kinds of
genius as intellectual qualities, and they are,
perhaps, even more highly transmissible. They
form the basis on which intellectual development
may take place, and they may be transmitted
by a parent in whom such development has never
occurred. The very frequent cases in which men

HEREDITY AND PARENTAGE.

103

of eminent intellectual ability have declared that
they owed everything to their mothers * have
sometimes been put aside as the expressions of
an amiable weakness. It requires some credulity,
however, to believe that men of pre-eminent, or
even less than pre-eminent, intellectual acuteness
are unable to estimate the character of their own
parents. The frequent sense of indebtedness to
their mothers expressed by eminent men may be
taken as largely due to the feeling that the in¬
heritance of moral or temperamental qualities is
an even more massive and important inheritance
than definite intellectual aptitudes. Such inheri¬
tance coming to intellectual men from their
mothers may often be observed where no definite
intellectual aptitudes have been transmitted. It
is not, however, of a kind which can well be re¬
corded in biographical dictionaries, and I have not,
therefore, attempted to estimate its frequency
in the group of pre-eminent persons under con¬
sideration.

I have, however, attempted to estimate the
frequency of one other form of anomaly in the
parents besides intellectual ability. The parents
of persons of eminent intellectual power may not

* A remark of Huxley’s in a letter to the present writer, — “ Mentally and
physically I am a piece of my mother,” — may be taken as typical of such
declarations.

104

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

themselves have been characterized by unusual
intellect ; but they may have shown mental
anomaly by a lack of aptitude for the ordinary
social life in which they were placed. In at
least 57 cases (or over 5 per cent.) we find that the
fathers were extravagant, unsuccessful in business,
shiftless, idle, drunken, brutal, or otherwise fell
into bad habits and neglected their families. In
such cases, we may conclude, the father has
transmitted to his eminent child an inaptness to
follow the beaten tracks of life, but he has not
transmitted any accompanying aptitude to make
new individual tracks. This list could easily
be enlarged if we included milder degrees of in¬
effectiveness. A certain degree of inoffensive
eccentricity, recalling Parson Adams, seems to
be not very uncommon among the fathers of
men of eminent ability, and perhaps furnishes a
transmissible temperament on which genius may
develop. It may be noted that six of the ne’er-do-
weel fathers (a very large proportion) belonged to
eminent women. This may be simply due to the
fact that a ne’er-do-weel father, by forcing the
daughter to leave home or to provide for the
family, furnishes a special stimulus to her latent
ability.

In 403 cases I have been able to ascertain with
a fair degree of certainty the size of the families

HEREDITY AND PARENTAGE.

105

to which these persons of eminent ability belong.
A more than fair degree of certainty has not
been attainable, owing to the loose and inexact
way in which the national biographers frequently
state the matter. Sometimes we are only told
that the subject of the article is “ the child ”
or “the son”; this may mean the only child,
but it is impossible to accept such a statement
as evidence regarding the size of the family, and
the number of families with only children may
possibly thus have been unduly diminished.
Again, the biographers in a very large number
of cases ignore the daughters, and from this
cause again their statements become valueless.
In estimating the natality of the families pro¬
ducing children of ability I have never knowingly
reckoned the offspring of previous or subsequent
marriages ; so far as possible, we are only con¬
cerned with the fecundity of the two parents of
the eminent persons. So far as possible, also,
I have reckoned the gross fecundity, i.e ., the
number of children born, not the number of chil¬
dren surviving ; in the case of a large number of
eminent men this gross fertility is known from
the inspection of parish registers ; in a certain
proportion of cases it is probable, however, that
we are only dealing with the surviving children.
On the whole, the ascertainable size of the family

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

io 6

may almost certainly be said to be under the
mark. It is, therefore, the more remarkable that the

average size of genius-producing families is found

to be larger than that of normal families. The
average size of our genius-producing families is
6.5. In order to effect an exact comparison with
normal families, I have looked about for some
fairly comparable series of figures, and am satis¬
fied that I have found it in the results of an
inquiry by Mr. F. Howard Collins concerning
4,390 families. # These families furnish an ex¬
cellent normal standard for comparison ; they
deal mainly with “ Anglo-Saxon ” people (in
England and America) of the middle and upper
classes ; they represent, with probably but very
slight errors of record, gross fertility ; they are
apparently not too recent, and they betray little
evidence of the artificial limitation of families.
The mean size of Collins’s group of fertile families
is found by Pearson to be 4.52 children.

This conclusion as to the abnormally large size of the
families from which genius tends to spring may be criti¬
cised in two directions. It may be argued that there
has been no recognition of the possibly larger size
of the normal family in the earlier periods which my

* As quoted by Karl Pearson, The Chances of Death , vol. I., p. 70.
In passing through Mr. Pearson’s mathematical hands the 4,390 emerge a
4,444, and it is on this number that my percentages for normal families ar
based.

HEREDITY AND PARENTAGE.

107

list covers. It may be said further that even the size
of the modern normal family has been underestimated.

It is unnecessary to speculate concerning the average
size of the normal family in former days until definite
evidence is brought forward. But I may point out that
the large size of genius-producing families holds good
even when we only take into account the nineteenth
century persons on my list. If, for instance, we consider
separately the 39 individuals from the supplement to
the Dictionary concerning whom I have definite data,
it is found that the average size of the families is 5.7, and
nine out of the number belong to families containing
from nine to seventeen children. I may add that at an
earlier stage in my inquiry (see Popular Science Monthly ,
April, 1901, p. 598) I found that the size of the families
from which British men of genius spring was still larger
than the present average of 6.5, being nearly 7 (6.96).
The reduction in size is due in part, it would seem, to
the large number of persons of comparatively minor
ability who have since been added, and perhaps in part to
a tendency to slightly decreased size among the families
from which have sprung the quite recent individuals
contained in the Dictionary of National Biography.

In regard to the correct estimation of the average size
of the normal family, it must be said that while my results
for British genius-producing families are, without doubt,
distinctly too low on account of the imperfection of the
data, yet every estimate of the average size of the normal
family, although founded on much more complete data,
yields an average decidedly below 6.5. Thus Ansell
found the average size of the family, counting all children
born alive, among the English professional classes, to
be about 5, or, more precisely, clergy 5.25, legal 5.18,

io8

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

medical 4.82. (C. Ansell, On the Rate of Mortality and

other Statistics of Families , 1874). Galton found the
mean of 204 marriages 4.65 children, Pearson the mean
of 378 fertile marriages 4.70 children.

A very interesting table is given in Mrs. Henry Sidg-
wick’s Health Statistics of Women Students of Cambridge
and Oxford and of their Sisters, 1890. Mrs. Sidgwick
found that these students (566 in number) belonged to
families of which the average size was as high as 6.8
children. (It must be said that this result is slightly
vitiated by the inclusion of 70 half brothers and sisters.)
One is inclined to look upon the result as necessarily
presenting the normal average for the families of the class
from which these students spring. It must, however,
be borne in mind that these figures refer largely to the
early days of the higher education of women ; we may
be fairly certain that a considerable proportion of these
students were women of unusual intellectual ability,
and that in numerous other cases they belonged to families
in which the brothers showed high ability. The result
therefore represents not the average fertility of the pro¬
fessional and allied classes from which these students
spring, but is complicated by the considerable admixture
of the special ability-producing group of the population
with its high fertility. This interpretation is clearly
supported by Mrs. Sidgwick’s tables. She has presented
separately the results of a large group containing the
Honours Students, and we are hereby enabled to discern
the notable fact that the Honours Students belong to
decidedly larger families than do the students generally.
In students generally the 6-children families constitute
the largest group ; for the Honours division the 8-chil¬
dren group is the largest, while very large families are

HEREDITY AND PARENTAGE.

109

relatively much more frequent among the Honours divi¬
sion than among the division of “ other students,” so
that, for instance, while among Honours students exactly
the same number belong to 11-children families as to 2-
children families, among “ other students ” more than
twice as many belong to 2-children families as to 11-
children families. Mrs. Sidgwick’s results may, therefore
be said to confirm the results reached in the present
investigation.

It may be added that the greater fertility which has
been shown to mark the families from which British
persons of ability in general have sprung, has already been
shown by Galton to mark the special group of families
from which modern British men of science spring. Galton
found ( English Men of Science) that the average number
of brothers and sisters (excluding, for the most part, those
who died in infancy) was 6.3. This indicates, as we should
expect, a decidedly higher fertility than in the families
producing the women students, though probably not
higher than would have been shown by the British
ability-producing families generally, had my data been
more complete.

Yoder, in studying the early lives of 50 eminent men
of various nationalities belonging to the eighteenth
and nineteenth centuries (A. H. Yoder, “ Boyhood of
Great Men,” Pedagogical Seminary , Oct. 1894,), found
that the average number of children in the families
from which they sprang, excluding half brothers and
sisters, was 6 + . This approximates to the result here
reached as regards British eminent men only.

It will be seen that the high fertility which we have
found among ability-producing families stands in opposi¬
tion to the well-known tendency to small families among

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

the higher human races and to the universal tendency,
well marked at the present day, for a falling birth-rate
to be associated with a rising level of civilisation and well¬
being. Within the same nation, also, the families of
the poorer classes are larger than those of the richer
classes ; thus in Holland at the present day, both in
town and country, the average number of children per
marriage in the poorest class is 5.19, against 4.50 for the
rich class.

It would, however, be a mistake to suppose that our
results can properly be regarded as unexpected. They
are, on the contrary, in harmony with all that we know
concerning the fertility of the families producing the
nervously abnormal classes, which is on the whole
decidedly high. Toulouse (Causes de la Folie , 1896,
p. 91) has summarised the evidence accumulated by Ball
and Regis, as well as by Marandon de Montyel, showing
that the size of the families from which the insane spring
is decidedly larger than the usual average. Professor
Magri (“ Le Famiglie dalle quali discendono i Delinquenti,”
Arch, di Psichiatria, 1896, fasc. VI. — VII.) has further
shown that this abnormally great fertility is by no
means confined to insanity-producing families, but also
characterises the progenitors of numerous other mentally
abnormal groups. Thus he found that criminals in
the majority of cases spring from large families, and that
although the average size of the normal family in Italy
is three or four, it was very rarely possible to find a
criminal who belonged to a family of only two or three
children. Magri also found that hysteria and neuras¬
thenia are notably frequent in large families.

Langdon Down had previously pointed out (Mental
Affections of Childhood) that imbeciles and weak-minded

HEREDITY AND PARENTAGE.

1 1 1

children tend to belong to large families ; he found the
average number of living children in the families con¬
taining idiots to be as high as 7. In Berlin Cassel (Was
lehrt die Untersuchung der geistig minderwertigen
Schulkinder , 1901) found that the average size of the
families from which defective children spring is over 7.

Comparing in more detail the composition
of our genius-producing families with the normal
average, we obtain the following results : —

Size of family .

Normal families .

12.2

14.7

I5-3

14. 1

11. 1

8.6

7.8

6.3

Genius - producing

families . . .

6.9

9.4

10.6

9.4

10. 1

10.4

8.9

6.7

Size of family.

Over 14.

Normal families .

3-9

2.7

1.4

1.0

•S

Genius - producing

families .

5-7

4-7

4.9

4.4

2.2

1.9

3-4

Unless, as is scarcely probable, the mental
eccentricities of biographers lead to very frequent
selection on definite lines, it will be seen that
in genius-producing f am dies there is an in¬
variable deficiency of families below the average
normal size, and a gradually increasing excess
of families above that size. In the largest size

1 12

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

group (over 14) the excess becomes extrava¬
gantly large ; this, however, may be partly
accounted for ; probably the biographers have
here less seldom failed to record the size of the
family, so this group may have been more care¬
fully recruited from the families of our 1,030
eminent persons. Even on this basis, however,
it remains extremely large. Ansell found that
in 2,000 marriages there was no family of more
than 18 children ; and in Denmark, it is stated,
a family of 22 children only occurs once in
34,000 marriages.*

An interesting point, and one which can
scarcely be affected at all by any twist in the
biographical mind, is the fact that our men of
ability (the women are here excluded) are the
offspring of predominantly boy-producing parents.
Taking the 180 families in which the number of
boys and girls in the family is clearly stated,
excluding those (29 in number) which are known
to consist only of boys, we find that there are
about six boys to five girls, or more exactly 12 1

* In our genius-producing group there are four families of more than
19 children. Doddridge was the youngest of 20 children ; Popham was the
youngest of his mother’s 21 children ; Colet was the eldest and only surviving
child of 22 ; Dempster was, or stated himself to be, the 24th of 29 children.
We cannot be absolutely sure that in every case we are dealing with a single
couple. It may be added that much larger families are from time to time
recorded as produced by a single couple. I may refer for instance to the
record {Brit. Med. Jour ., 12th Oct., 1901) of a family of 36 children; in
such a case there are of course numerous plural births.

HEREDITY AND PARENTAGE. 113

boys to 100 girls. The normal proportion of
the sexes at birth at the present time in England
is about 104 boys to 100 girls. It is in accord¬
ance with the predominantly boy-producing
tendency of families yielding men of genius that
the families yielding women of genius should
show a predominantly girl-producing tendency.
Here, indeed, our cases are too few to prove
much, but the results are definite enough as far
as they go. Putting aside the families con¬
sisting only of girls, the sexual ratio is almost
reversed ; there are about six girls to five boys ;
or, more exactly, the ratio is 79 boys to 100
girls. We find that among the children of
parents producing an eminent man there are
55 per cent, boys to 45 per cent, girls ; among
the children of parents producing an eminent
woman there are only 45 per cent, boys to 54
per cent, girls. Putting the matter in another
way, we may say that, while in .every ten
families from which men of genius spring, the
boys predominate in six families ; in the families
from which women of genius spring the boys
predominate only in about three.

Ansell found in England (as has Geissler in Saxony)
that there are normally a larger number of boys in large
families than in small families ; in families of 1-5 children
he found the proportion of males to females 1,033 to

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

1 14

1,000 ; in families of 6-10 children, 1,075 to 1,000 ; in
families of 11 children and over, 1,083 to 1,000. It will
be seen, however, that this tendency is by no means
sufficiently marked to furnish a sufficing explanation of
the large preponderance of boys in the families producing
eminent men ; nor will it account at all for the apparently
large excess of girls — this, however, being based on only a
small number of cases — in the families producing eminent
women.

I may add that while not an all-sufficing explanation,
the tendency pointed out by Ansell is evidently a real
factor in this peculiarity among the families producing
men of ability. I have found it holds good within the
limits of the families producing men of ability. Taking
at random 25 families with five or fewer children, I find
that the girls are in an absolute and decided majority,
while in another series, taken equally at random, of 25
families containing eight or more children, males are to
females in the proportion of 130 to 100.

It is possible that some light is thrown on the preva¬
lence of boys in large families by the facts observed
among animals. It is believed by many authorities that
excess of maternal nourishment tends to produce females,
and it has also been found that mares over 14 years of
age tend to produce colts ( Veterinarian , 1 Aug., 1895).
In large families the maternal nourishment would tend
to be decreased by much child-bearing. It is note¬
worthy — although I have not systematically investigated
this point — that the interval between the birth of the
eminent person and the previous child is often very short.

Yoder, who especially attended to this point, found
that in the 26 cases in which the point could be ascer¬
tained, the interval was 22.87 months, while the average

HEREDITY AND PARENTAGE.

ii5

time in the family, for 30 cases, was 25.36 months. This
suggests that it is possible that the maternal exhaustion
which tends to produce males also tends to produce
children of eminent ability.

It may be said on the whole that this excessive boy-
producing tendency of the families which produce men
of genius is really the resultant of the combined action
of a number of factors, each of which, occurring separ¬
ately, tends to produce a slighter but still abnormally
large excess of boys. Not only would it appear that
large families, and families in which the children follow
very rapidly, tend to yield a large excess of boys, but
observations on man and on other animals indicate that
an undue excess of males is also found when the age of
the father is unduly advanced (see e.g., A. J. Wall,
Lancet, 1887), when the age of the mother is unusually
advanced, when the disparity of age between the
parents is unusually great, and when the parents live
in the country and are occupied in country pursuits.
All these conditions which favour the production of
boys have also — as we have seen or shall see — favoured
the production of genius in Great Britain. (For a study
of the facts and theories bearing on the excess of male
births, see A. Rauber, Dev Ueberschuss an Knabenge-
burten und seine Biologische Bedeutung, 1900.)

I have made a tentative effort to ascertain
what position in the family the child of genius
is most likely to occupy. In a large number
of cases we are only told his position as a son,
not as a child ; these are, of course, excluded.
In order to investigate this point I considered

ii 6

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

the families of at least eight children (and sub¬
sequently those of at least seven children) and
noted where the genius child came. This showed
a very abnormally large proportion of eminent
first children, and also abnormally few second
and third children. Suspecting that certain
peculiarities of the biographical mind (needless
to enter into here, since we are not investigating
the psychology of biographers) may have some¬
what affected this result, I have confined myself
to a simple inquiry less likely to be affected by
any mental tendencies of the biographers. In
families of different sizes, what relation do eldest
genius children and youngest genius children
bear to genius children of intermediate position ?
The results are very decisive, and are shown in
the following table.

Size of Family.

Position of Eminent Child.

Eldest.

Intermediate.

Youngest.

Over 14

HEREDITY AND PARENTAGE. 117

It would appear that there is a special liability
for eldest and youngest children to be born
with intellectual aptitudes, the liability being
greater in the case of the eldest than of the
youngest, for there are altogether 94 eldest
children to 67 youngest children, the inter¬
mediate children numbering 148 ; or 30 per cent,
are eldest children, 21 per cent, youngest children,
and 47 per cent, intermediate. It will be seen
that while the eldest and youngest children
of ability absolutely outnumber those of inter¬
mediate position, notwithstanding the large
average size of the families producing children
of ability, and the consequently much greater
number of chances possessed by the intermediate
children as a group, the chances of the eldest
attaining eminence as compared with the chances
of the youngest are not the same throughout.
In the small and medium-sized families it is the
eldest who most frequently achieves fame ; in
the large families it is the youngest. It may
be added that if we were to take into considera¬
tion the survivors of a family only (or the net
fertility) the youngest children would occupy
a still more conspicuous position.

This predominance of eldest children and youngest
children among persons of genius accords with the results
reached by Yoder in studying an international group

1 1 8 A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

of 50 eminent men (Am. Jour . Psychology , Oct., 1894, p.
146) ; he found that youngest sons occurred oftener than
intermediate sons and eldest sons oftener than youngest.
Galton, in his inquiries as to recent British men of
science, reached the same result, finding 36 intermediate
sons, 15 youngest sons, and 26 eldest sons. (Galton,
English Men of Science , pp. 33-4.).

It must be added that this result is absolutely in ac¬
cordance with what a consideration of other mentally
abnormal groups would lead us to expect. Sir Arthur
Mitchell appears to have been the first to point out many
years ago (Edinburgh Medical Journal, Jan., 1866) that
among idiots the youngest born and especially the eldest
born largely predominate over the intermediate children ;
he found that among 433 idiots and imbeciles 31 per
cent, were first-born children and 20 per cent, last-
born. It will be seen that the proportion of eldest and
youngest children among Mitchell’s idiots and imbeciles
is almost identical with the proportion found among
British persons of genius. Langdon Down (Mental
Affections of Childhood) confirmed this conclusion, as re¬
gards the tendency of both eldest and youngest children to
be imbecile, and Shuttleworth (Brit. Med. Jour., 17 Nov.,
1900, p. 1446) has confirmed it so far as youngest chil¬
dren are concerned. Criminals have also been found to
be in undue proportion first-born children (L. Winter,
States Hospital Bull. 1897, p. 463, as quoted by Nacke),
and Dugdale found that the first-born child tends to be
a criminal and the last-born a pauper. It would appear
(see e.g. Moll, Untersuchungen iiber die Libido Sexualis.
Bd. I., p. 19) that there is some ground for believing that
sexual inversion tends especially to appear among eldest
and youngest children. It may be added that, according

HEREDITY AND PARENTAGE.

119

to Sir J. Humphrey, in racing stables opinion is not
favourable as regards firstlings.

It is interesting to find that the same points have been
brought out as regards normal school children. This
question was specially studied in its wider bearings at
Professor Starbuck’s suggestion by Mr. G. S. Wells, among
a large number of children at San Jose, California (G. S.
Wells, A Study of the Order of the Birth of Children , 1901.
I am indebted to Professor Starbuck for enabling me to
see this study in MS.). The children were investigated
by trained observers, and their position noted as regards
weight, height, weight-discrimination, reaction time,
voluntary action, ability, endurance, mental ability,
neatness and deportment. In nearly all these respects
it was found that eldest children tend to show best, and
that youngest children, while inferior to eldest, were
superior to intermediate children. Out of numerous
curves, fourteen show the first group highest, six the last
group highest, only two the intermediate group.

The tendency to nervous abnormality in first-born
children would seem to be further indicated by the obser¬
vations of Miss Carman (Am. Jour. Psych., Ap., 1899)
that first-born boys are more sensitive, as estimated by
the temple algometer, than second or subsequent chil¬
dren. She also found that the first-born boys are
strongest with the dynamometer. Macdonald (Boston
Med. and Surg. Jour., 1 Aug., 1901) found that first-born
men and women are more sensitive to pain than second-
born.

I may remark that I had been impressed twenty-five
years ago by the tendency of men of genius to be eldest-
born children, although I was not then acquainted with
Galton’s investigations. It appears to be a popular

120

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

belief (H. Campbell, Causation of Disease, p. 262, com¬
bats this belief) that the first-born child is inferior.
Shandy said that the eldest son is the blockhead of the
family. On the other hand, there are popular beliefs
in the other direction. Thus in Northern Iceland
( Zeitschrift fur Ethnologie, 1900, heft 2 & 3, p. 74) it is
believed that the first-born child, whether boy or girl,
surpasses the others in strength, stature, beauty, wisdom,
virtue, and good fortune, and in olden times the eldest
child possessed certain privileges not accorded to the
others. These conflicting popular beliefs are fully
accounted for by the actual facts. The eldest-born
represents the point of greatest variation in the family,
and the variations thus produced may be in either direc¬
tion, useful or useless, good or bad.

Whenever it has been possible, I have noted
the age of the father at the birth of his eminent
child. It has been possible to ascertain this
in 299 cases, and the data thus obtained may be
considered as fairly free from fallacy, so far as
the biographical mind is concerned, though we
may be sure that the biographers would not
neglect to mention the two or three known cases
in which that age was extremely youthful or
advanced. The range of age is considerable,
from sixteen, the age of Napier of Merchiston’s
father at his son’s birth, to seventy-nine, the age
of Charles Leslie’s father, the periods of potency
in the case of the fathers of persons of eminent
ability thus ranging over sixty-three years. The

HEREDITY AND PARENTAGE.

1 2 1

299 cases may be grouped in five-year age-periods
as follows :

Age of Fathers.

Under 20

20-24

25-29

30-34

35-39

Number of Fathers .

Percentages . . .

Age of Fathers.

40-44

45-49

50-54

55-59

and over.

Number of Fathers .

Percentages . . .

It will be seen that the most frequent age
of fatherhood is from 30 to 34, but there are
two separate years of maximum frequency, 34
and 36, each with 19 cases. A prevalence of
elderly fathers seems indicated by the fact
that the general average falls later than this
maximum, being 37.1 years. For one father
who begets an eminent child before the
age of maximum paternity, — which is also, we
may assume, the age of maximum general
vigour, — there are nearly three who beget an
eminent child when that age is past. This
result is the more significant when we remember
that we are chiefly dealing with the upper social

122

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

classes (for it is in their cases that these facts
are most easily ascertained), and that we must
probably exclude the recent tendency to retarda¬
tion of the age of marriage.

I have thought that it may be of interest
to separate from the main body the one hundred
most recent of the eminent persons on my list
(all born in the nineteenth century) and to con¬
sider how the ages of their fathers are distributed.
The result is as follows :

Age . . .

20 —

25—

30—

35—

40 -

45—

50—

55—

Number .

The most frequent age is 34, but the average
age is 37, being almost equal to the average
for the fathers of the whole group, so that
this factor in the biological constitution of
the genius group would appear to be fairly
uniform throughout and independent of social
and economic changes, except that the age of
the fathers has perhaps tended in the course of
time to become slightly lower. Although this
decrease in age is very trifling, it appears to be
confirmed by the results yielded if we make a
separate group of the 71 individuals born before
the eighteenth century the age of whose fathers

HEREDITY AND PARENTAGE.

123

I have been able to determine. The distribution
is as follows :

Under 20

20 —

25—

30—

35—

40—

45—

50—

55—

60 and over.

The most frequent age here, taking the years
separately, is as low as 25, but on the other hand
the average age is slightly higher than that for
the general group, being 37.2. It is possible
that this slightly higher age — very trifling as
it is — indicates a real tendency. The further
we go back the higher becomes the intellectual
average of the individuals we are dealing with, and
there is some reason to suppose that with such
high average intellectual level, the average age of
the fathers is also higher, and the range of varia¬
tion is greater. Such trifling fluctuations would be
negligible if they did not all point in one direction.

I may refer to another indication which helps
to confirm the conclusion that when we are
dealing with a group of men of very high intel¬
lectual eminence the average age of their fathers
is slightly higher than when we are dealing with
a group o lower eminence. On separating into
a distinct group all those eminent men on my
Lst who are also included in the first three hundred
(i.e., the most eminent section) of Professor

124

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

CattelFs one thousand most eminent persons in
history (see ante, p. 8), we obtain a group of
37 individuals who are without doubt of a higher
level of intellectual ability than the general
average of the British group. The age of the
fathers of the pre-eminent men in this special
group is as high as 37.7 years.

The ages of the fathers of Galton’s recent British men
of science in 100 cases were distributed as follows :

20 —

25—

30—

35—

40—

45—

5o~

The average was 36. These results as regards this group
may very fairly be compared with the results reached
concerning the contemporaneous group of 100 from my
list which has been separately calculated. It will be seen
that in the more mixed and more eminent British group,
as might be anticipated, the variations are greater ; there
are a larger proportion alike of younger and of elderly
fathers. In Yoder’s group of 39 fathers of men of various
nationalities whose average eminence was of higher degree
than mine and much higher than Galton’s, the numbers
are too small to bear much weight ; they were distributed
as follows, with an average age of 37.78 years :

20 —

25—

30—

35—

40—

45—

50—

55—

60 —

HEREDITY AND PARENTAGE. 125

The most notable point here, as compared with either
Galton’s results or mine, is the marked deficiency of
fathers under 30. It will be noticed that the average
age of the fathers in Galton’s, mine, and Yoder’s groups
rises progressively (36, 37.1., 37.78) with the intellectual
eminence of the group. It may well be that this is not
a casual coincidence. The tendency for the fathers of
men of genius to be elderly had, as Yoder points out,
already been noted by Lombroso (Man of Genius, p. 149).

According to Ansell (On the Rate of Mortality, etc.,
1874), the average age of fathers of the professional and
allied classes (estimated as the length of a generation,
i.e., the difference between the age of father and son) is
36.6. An average tells us nothing concerning the range
of variation, but it may be observed that this normal
average approximates to that obtained in the most
nearly normal of the groups of ability we are here
able to compare. I have no other data concerning
the normal ages of the fathers of the professional and
upper classes in modern England, and in any case we
could not be sure how far such data could be comparable
with that presented by our group of eminent persons
which is spread over many centuries. The influence of
the age of the fathers in various normal and abnormal
groups of the population has been most carefully and
elaborately studied by Marro in North Italy (in his
Caratteri dei Delinquenti, and more recently in La
Pubertd). Marro regards fathers below the age of twenty-
six as belonging to the period of immaturity ; the period
of maturity is from twenty-six to forty, and the period
of decadence from forty-one onwards. He found, among
the normal population, that 9 per cent, fathers belonged
to the first period, 66 per cent, to the second, and 25 per

126

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

cent, to the third. Among the fathers of criminals there
was an increase both of immature and of decadent fathers
at the expense of the mature, while among the insane
fathers there was a similar but more marked in¬
crease of immature and decadent fathers. In studying
the age of the fathers of school children, Marro found
that while children of good intelligence are mostly the
offspring of young fathers, those of the highest grade of
intelligence are mostly the children of middle-aged and
elderly fathers. He found also that the highest pro¬
portion of very defectively intelligent children belonged
to elderly fathers. Aristotle had long before said that
the children of very young or very old people are imper¬
fect in mind or body. We may slightly modify that
ancient dictum by saying that the children of such people
tend to be abnormal.

I have only been able to ascertain the age of
the mother in 86 instances. In these cases it is
distributed as follows :

Age of
Mother...

Under 20

20-24

25-29

30-34

35-39

40-44

45-49

Number of
Cases...

Per cent....

1. 1

The average age of the mothers is 31.2 years.
Taking the years separately we find that there
are only three mothers at the age of 25 and only
two at 26, when there is a sudden rise to ten at
the age of 27, representing the chief maximum ;

HEREDITY AND PARENTAGE.

127

there is, however, a secondary maximum (of
eight cases) at 30, and again (also of eight cases)
af 33- On the whole, it will be seen, the ages of
the mothers exhibit the same tendency to late
parenthood which marks the fathers. Instead
of falling earlier, as we should expect, the age of
maximum frequency for the mothers falls within
the same five years as for the fathers, and the
number of mothers who have reached the sex¬
ually advanced age of 40 is nearly as large as
the number of those below the age of 25. This is
the more remarkable since the predominant
tendency of our men of ability to be first-born
children would lead us to expect a corresponding
predominance of young women among their
mothers.

In Galton’s 100 cases of mothers of modern British
men of science the average age was thirty, and the dis¬
tribution was as follows : —

Under 20

20 —

25—

30—

35—

40—

45—

It will be seen that in my list of mothers of British persons
of ability, the intellectual eminence being greater than
in Galton’s, there is a comparative deficiency of young
mothers (indeed, for all ages under 35), and a very marked
excess of elderly mothers, while the average age also is

128

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

higher than in Galton’s. Yoder found the average
age of the mothers in his group to be 29.8, but he is only
able to bring forward twenty cases.

Marro in his study of the ages of the mothers of
North Italian criminals, insane, school children, etc.,
found that the relations that existed between the different
groups were very much the same as in the cases of the
fathers.

The influence of the age of the parents on the children
as regards various kinds of mental and nervous ability
has been investigated in California by Mr. R. S. Holway,
and I am indebted to Professor Starbuck for enabling
me to see Mr. Holway’s study in MS. ( The Age of Parents :
Its Effects Upon Children , a thesis presented to the
Department of Education, Leland Stanford Junior
University, 1901). It was found that, while in most
physical qualities the children of mature parents tend to
come out best, in mental ability the children of young
parents show best at an early age, but rapidly lose their
precocity ; the elder children who show best tend to be
the parents of mature and old parents ; the exception¬
ally brilliant children show a tendency to be the offspring
of old parents ; the children of elderly mothers show a
tendency to superiority throughout.

Ansell found that the normal age of mothers in British
professional and allied class (estimated as length of a
generation) is as high as 32.3 years, but in the absence
of information as to distribution we cannot determine
the significance of this result. Among the general popu¬
lation of poor class, Collins ( Practical Treatise of Mid¬
wifery) found that the most frequent age of maternity
in Ireland (where early marriages are common) was
between 25 and 29, the average age being 27. In Edin-

HEREDITY AND PARENTAGE.

129

burgh and Glasgow, however, Matthews Duncan ( Fecun¬
dity , Fertility , Sterility , and Allied Topics, 2nd ed., 1871)
found the average age in a similar class of the population
to be above 29, the distribution being as follows :

Age

Below 20

JO—

25—

30—

35—

40—

45—

50—

Per cent.

2.30

22.62

30.89

23.61

14.76

5-i 5

•58

.03

It will be seen that this distribution closely corre¬
sponds with that of the mothers of Galton’s men of
science, but shows much fewer cases at the higher ages
than does my group.

The conclusion that among the parents of our men
of genius there is an abnormally large proportion of
elderly mothers is confirmed by the normal data furnished
by Roberton (J. Roberton, Essays and Notes on the
Physiology and Diseases of Women, 1851, p. 183). He
found that among 10,000 pregnant women in Manchester,
only 4.3 per cent, were over 40, i.e., were at least in their
forty-first year.

From a consideration of these various groups of
data, among the mothers of highly intellectual children
there would certainly appear to be some deficiency of
very young mothers, and there is a decided excess of
elderly mothers. If, as we may conclude from the
marked prevalence of first-born children among our
British people of ability, this tendency to a some¬
what advanced age of the parents is associated with
late marriages, we perhaps have here one of the
factors in the prevalence of an excess of boys in the
families producing eminent men, since, as Ahlfeld has
shown (Arch. /. Gyndk , 1876, Bd. IX. p. 448), there is

130

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

a gradual though not altogether regular increase with
age in the proportion of boys, among primiparce be¬
tween the ages of 28 and 36, so that while at the earlier
age there were at Leipzig no boys to 100 girls, at the
later age there were 190 boys to 100 girls.

It may be noted that in at least 44 cases the
mother was a second or third wife. This group
is a somewhat distinguished one, including F.
Bacon, R. Boyle, Bunyan, Byron, Chaucer, S. T.
Coleridge, and Raleigh. The list is certainly
very incomplete. In at least nine cases the father
was a second husband.

It is instructive to compare the ages of the
parents and to ascertain the degree of disparity.
I have only been able to do this in 71 cases.
There is a marked tendency to disparity which
ranges up to 49 years.* In 55 cases the father
was older.

The distribution of the various degrees of dis¬
parity may be seen in the following table :

j Amount
of

Disparity

None.

1-4 yrs.

5-9 yrs.

10-14 yrs.

15-19 yrs.

Over 20 yrs.

Number

Cases.

* This very exceptional case was that of the father (an eminent bishop) of
Charles Leslie, the nonjuring divine. In this case the father was 79, the
mother 30.

HEREDITY AND PARENTAGE. 131

The average amount of disparity for the whole
of the 71 cases is as high at 7.7 years. It will
be seen that the number of cases in which the
disparity was at least ten years is equal to a
proportion of over 26 per cent.

According to Ansell, the mean difference in ages of
husband and wife among the professional classes in
England during the nineteenth century was 4.16 years ;
before 1840 it was only 3.89 years, rising to 4.42 years
after 1840. This rise is doubtless connected with the
accompanying rise in the age of marriage. It will be
seen that the degree of disparity in the case of the parents
of eminent British persons is nearly double that of the
normal average before 1840, with which only it can be
compared. The distribution of the different degrees
of disparity is not seen from Ansell’s tables, but the
frequency of high degrees of disparity in age among the
parents of eminent British persons is evidently extreme.
In Buda-Pesth a table given by Korosi (though not
strictly comparable with the present data) shows that if
we take men at ages between 26 and 30, covering the
most frequent normal age of marriage in only 3 per
cent, cases is the discrepancy of age as much as ten
years.

A similar tendency to unusual disparity of age in the
parents is found among other nervously abnormal
groups. It is so, for instance, among idiots. Some fifteen
years ago, the late Dr. Langdon Down, at my suggestion,
kindly went through the notes of one thousand cases
of idiots who had been under his care, and found that in
23 per cent, cases there was a disparity of age of more
than ten years in the parents of the idiot child, the

132

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS

disparity in many cases being more than twenty-five
years.

Disparity of age in the parents is also, as Marro has
found (La Puberta , p. 259), unusually prevalent among
criminals. Among the parents of North Italian school
children he found that the normal proportion of parents
both belonging to the same stage of development (im¬
mature, mature, or decadent) is 70 per cent. ; among
the parents of North Italian criminals it is only 63 per
cent.

f It has occurred to me as possible that the tendency to
disparity of age may be one of the factors in the marked
prevalence of boys. As, however, it has only happened
that in a comparatively small proportion of cases I have
exact data regarding the respective numbers of boys and
girls in the families of parents in whom the exact amount
of disparity is known, it has not been possible to test this
point with any certainty. So far as figures give any
indication, they indicate that if disparity is a factor in
the sexual proportion of the offspring it can only be so
in a very slight degree.

On the whole it would appear, so far as the
evidence goes, that the fathers of our eminent
persons have been predominantly middle-aged
and to a marked extent elderly at the time of
the distinguished child’s birth ; while the mothers
have been predominantly at the period of greatest
vigour and maturity, and to a somewhat unusual
extent elderly. There has been a notable de¬
ficiency of young fathers, and, still more notably,
of young mothers.

133

CHILDHOOD AND YOUTH.

The frequency of constitutional delicacy in infancy and childhood — Tendency
of those who were weak in infancy to become robust later — The prevalence
of precocity — University education — The frequency of prolonged residence
abroad in early life.

The first significant fact we encounter in studying
the life-histories of these eminent persons is the
frequency with which they have shown marked
constitutional delicacy in infancy and early life.
A group of at least six, — Joanna Baillie, Hobbes,
Keats, Newton, Smart, Charles Wesley, with
perhaps Locke and Sterne, — were seven months
children, or, at all events, notably premature
in birth ; it is a group of very varied and pre¬
eminent ability. Not including the above (who
were necessarily weakly), at least fourteen are
noted as having been very weak at birth, and not
expected to live — even given up as dead ; in several
cases they were, on account of supposed imminent
death, baptised on the same day. Altogether as

134

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

many as no are mentioned as being extremely
delicate during infancy or childhood, and the
real number is certainly much greater, for this is
a point which must frequently be unknown to
the biographers, or be ignored by them.

In addition to these, we are told of 103 others
(10 per cent.) of our eminent British persons that
their health was delicate throughout life, so that
we may reasonably assume that in most cases
their feeble constitutions were congenital. Thus
at the lowest estimate 213 of the individuals on
our list, — a very large proportion of those for
whom we have data on this question, — were con¬
genitally of notably feeble physical constitution.

Professor A. H. Yoder encountered this fact in the
course of his interesting study of the early life of a small
group of men of genius ( Pedagogical Seminary , October,
1894), but failed to realise its significance. He put it
aside as due to a desire on the part of biographers to
magnify the mental at the expense of the physical
qualities of their subjects.. There is no evidence what¬
ever in support of this assumption.

The significance of such early delicacy has, however,
already been recognised by other writers. Thus Sir
W. G. Simpson (Journal of Mental Science , October,
1:893) points out that illness in children is followed by
increased mental development.

It may be noted that a tendency to die at birth is
also noted among idiots, who often require resuscitation
(Matthews Duncan, Sterility in Women, p. 61).

CHILDHOOD AND YOUTH.

135

Although it may fairly be assumed that this
proportion, at least, of our eminent persons
showed signs of physical inferiority at the be¬
ginning of life, it must not be assumed that
in all cases such inferiority was marked through¬
out life. The reverse of this is notably the case
in many instances. This is not indeed absolutely
proved by longevity, frequently noted in such
cases, for men of genius have sometimes lived
to an advanced age though all their lives suffering
from feeble health. But there is a large group
of cases (probably much larger than actually
appears), in which the delicate infant develops
into a youth or a man of quite exceptional
physical health and vigor. Bruce, the traveller,
is a typical example. Very delicate in early
life, he developed into a man of huge proportions,
athletic power and iron constitution. Jeremy
Bentham, very weak and delicate in childhood,
became healthy and robust and lived to 84 ;
Burke, weak and always ailing in early life, was
tall and vigorous at 27 ; Constable, not expected
to live at birth, became a strong and healthy
boy ; Dickens, a puny and sickly child, was full
of strength and energy at the age of 12 ; Galt,
a delicate and sensitive child, developed Herculean
proportions and energy ; Hobbes, very weak in
early life, went on gaining strength throughout

136 A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

life and died at 81 ; Lord Stowell, with a very
feeble constitution in early life, became robust
and died at 91. It would be easy to multiply
examples, though the early feebleness of the
future man of robust constitution must often
have been forgotten or ignored, and it is probable
that this course of development is not without
significance.

I have noted that in a very large number of
cases one or both parents died soon after the birth
of their eminent child. One small but eminent
group, — including Blackstone, Chatterton, Cowley,
Newton, Adam Smith, and Swift, — had lost their
fathers before birth. We may trace here the
frequent presence of inherited delicacy of con¬
stitution.

The chief feature in the childhood of persons
of eminent intellectual ability brought out by
the present data is their precocity. This has
indeed been emphasized by previous inquirers
into the psychology of genius, but its prevalence
is very clearly shown by the present investigation.
It has certainly to be said that the definition
of precocity ” requires a little more careful
consideration than it sometimes receives at the
hands of those who have inquired into it, and
that when we have carefully defined what we
mean by “ precocity ” it is its absence rather

CHILDHOOD AND YOUTH

137

than its presence which ought to astonish us
in men of genius.* Judging from the data
before us, there are at least three courses open
to a child who is destined eventually to display
pre-eminent intellectual ability. He may (1) show
extraordinary aptitude for acquiring the ordinary
subjects of school study ; he may (2), on the other
hand, show only average, and even much less
than average, aptitude for ordinary school studies,
but be at the same time engrossed in following
up his own preferred lines of study or thinking ;
he may, once more (3), be marked in early life
solely by physical energy, by his activity in games
or mischief, or even by his brutality, the physical
energy being sooner or later transformed into
intellectual energy. It is those of the first group,
those who display an extraordinary aptitude
for ordinary school learning, who create most
astonishment and are chiefly referred to as proving
the f< precocity ” of genius. There can be no doubt
whatever that even in the very highest genius
such extraordinary aptitude at a very early age
is not infrequently observed. It must also be

* For a summary of investigations into the precocity of genius, see A. F.
Chamberlain, The Child , pp. 42-6. Cf. also an article by Prof. Sully on
“Genius and Precocity,” in the Nineteenth Century , June 1886, and another
by Prof. J. Jastrow (Journal of Education , July, 1888) showing that
precocity is more marked among persons of transcendent genius than among
the merely eminent.

138 A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

said that it occurs in children who, after school
or college life is over, or even earlier, display
no independent intellectual energy whatever. It
is probable that here we really have two classes
of cases simulating uniformity. In one class we
have an exquisitely organized and sensitive
mental mechanism which assimilates whatever
is presented to it, and with development ever
seeks more complicated problems to grapple
with. In the other class we merely have a sponge¬
like mental receptivity, without any corresponding
degree of aptitude for intellectual organization,
so that when the period of mental receptivity
is over no further development takes place.
The second group, comprising those children
who are mostly indifferent to ordinary school
learning but are absorbed in their own lines of
thought, certainly contains a very large number
of individuals destined to attain intellectual
eminence. They by no means impress people
by their precocity ” ; Scott, occupied in building
up romances, was a “ dunce ” ; Hume, the youthful
thinker, was described by his mother as uncom¬
mon weak-minded.’ ’ Yet the individuals of this
group are often in reality far more “precocious,”
further advanced along the line of their future
activities, than the children of the first group.
It is true that they may be divided into two

CHILDHOOD AND YOUTH.

139

classes, those who from the first have divined the
line of their later advance, and those who are
only restlessly searching and exploring ; but
both alike have really entered on the path of
their future progress. The third group, including
those children who are only noted for their physical
energy, is the smallest. In these cases some
powerful external impression, — a severe illness, an
emotional shock, contact with some person of
intellectual eminence, — serves to divert the physi¬
cal energy into mental channels. In those fields
of eminence in which moral qualities and force of
character count for much, such as statesmanship
and generalship, this course of development
seems to be a favourable one, but in more purely
intellectual fields it scarcely seems to lead very
often to the finest results. On the whole, it is
evident that precocity is not a very valuable
or precise conception as applied to persons of
intellectual eminence. The conception of physical
precocity is fairly exact and definite. It indicates
an earlier than average attainment of the ultimate
growth of maturity. But we are by no means
warranted in asserting that the man of intellectual
ability reaches his full growth and maturity
earlier than the average man. And even when
as a child he is compared with other children,
his marked superiority along certain lines may

140

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS

be more than balanced by his apparent in¬
feriority along other lines. It is no doubt true
that, in a vague use of the word, genius is very
often indeed f< precocious ” ; but it is evident that
this statement is almost meaningless unless we
use the word precocity ” in a carefully defined
manner. It would be better if we asserted that
genius is in a large number of cases mentally
abnormal from the first, and if we were to seek
to inquire precisely wherein that mental abnor¬
mality consisted. With these preliminary remarks
we may proceed to note the prevalence among
British persons of genius of the undefined con¬
ditions commonly termed c‘ precocity.' '

It is certainly very considerable. Although
we have to make allowance for ignorance in a
large proportion of cases, and for neglect to
mention the fact in many more cases, the national
biographers note that 292 of the 1,030 eminent
persons on our list may in one sense or another
be termed precocious, and only 44 are mentioned
as not precocious. Many of the latter belong to
the second group, as defined above, — those who
are already absorbed in their own lines of mental
activity, — and are really just as c‘ precocious ” as
the others ; thus Cardinal Wiseman as a boy
was c< dull and stupid, always reading and think¬
ing ” ; Byron showed no aptitude for school

CHILDHOOD AND YOUTH. 141

work, but was absorbed in romance, and Landor,
though not regarded as precocious, was already
preparing for his future literary career. In a
small but interesting group of cases, which must
be mentioned separately, the mental development
is first retarded and then accelerated ; thus
Chatterton up to the age of six and a half was, said
his mother, little better than an absolute fool,”
then he fell in love with the illuminated capitals
of an old folio, at seven was remarkable for
brightness, and at ten was writing poems ; Gold¬
smith, again, was a stupid child, but before he
could write legibly he was fond of poetry and
rhyming, and a little later he was regarded as
a clever boy ; while Fanny Burney did not know
her letters at eight, but at ten was writing stories
and poems.

Probably the greatest prodigies of infant pre¬
cocity among these eminent persons were Cowley,
Sir W. R. Hamilton, Wren, and Thomas Young,
three of these, it will be seen, being men of the
first order of genius. J. Barry and Thirlwall were
also notable prodigies, and it would be easy to
name a large number of others whose youthful
proficiency in learning was of extremely unusual
character. While, however, this is undoubtedly
the case, it scarcely appears that any actual
achievements of note date from early youth. It

142

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

is only in mathematics, and to some extent
in poetry, that originality may be attained at
an early age, but even then it is very rare (Newton
and Keats are examples), and is not notable until
adolescence is completed.

The very marked prevalence of an early bent
towards those lines of achievement in which success
is eventually to be won is indicated by the fact
that in those fields in which such bent is most
easily perceived it is most frequently found. It
is marked among the musicians, and would doubt-
less be still more evident if it were not that our
knowledge concerning British composers is very
incomplete. It is specially notable in the case
of artists. It is reported of not less than 40 out
of 64 that in art they were precocious”; only four
are noted as not being specially precocious.

A certain proportion of the eminent persons
on our list have followed the third course of early
development as defined above, that is to say,
they have been merely noted for physical energy
in youth. Sir Joseph Banks was very fond of
play till 14, when he was suddenly struck by
the beauty of a lane ; Isaac Barrow was chiefly
noted for fighting at school ; Chalmers was full
of physical activity, but his intellect awoke late ;
Thomas Cromwell was a ruffian in youth ; Thur-
low, even at college, was idle and insubordinate ;

CHILDHOOD AND YOUTH.

143

Murchison was a mischievous boy, full of animal
spirits, and was not interested in science till the
age of 32 ; Perkins was reckless and drunken
till his conversion. It can scarcely be said
than any of these remarkable men, not even
Barrow, achieved very great original distinction
in purely intellectual fields. In order to go far,
it is evidently desirable to start early.

The influence of education on men of genius
is an interesting subject for investigation. It is,
however, best studied by considering in detail
the history of individual cases ; generalized
statements cannot be expected to throw much
light on it. I have made no exact notes concerning
the school education of the eminent persons at
present under consideration ; it is evident that
as a rule they received the ordinary school edu¬
cation of children of their class, and very few
were, on account of poverty or social class, shut
out from school education. A small but notable
proportion were educated at home, being debarred
from school-life by feeble health ; a few, also
(like J. S. Mill), were specially educated by an
intellectual father or mother.

The fact of university education has been very
carefully noted by the national biographers, and
it is possible to form a fairly exact notion of the
proportion of eminent British men who have

144

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

enjoyed this advantage. This proportion is de¬
cidedly large. The majority (53 per cent.) have,
in fact, been at some university. Oxford stands
easily at the head; 41 per cent, of those who have
had a university education received it at Oxford,
and only 33 per cent, at Cambridge. An inter¬
esting point is observed here ; the respective
influences of Oxford and Cambridge are due to
geographical considerations ; there is a kind of
educational watershed between Oxford and Cam¬
bridge, running north and south, and so placed
that Northamptonshire is on the eastern side.
Cambridge drains the east coast, including the
important East Anglian district and the greater
part of Yorkshire, whilst Oxford drains the whole
of the rest of England as well as Wales. This at
once accounts both for the greater number of
eminent men who have been at Oxford and for
the special characteristics of the two universities,
due to the districts that have fed them, the more
literary character of Oxford, the more scientific
character of Cambridge. The Scotch universities
are responsible for 14 per cent, of our eminent
men. Trinity College, Dublin, shows 5 per cent.
The remaining 4 per cent, have studied at one or
more foreign universities. Paris (the Sorbonne)
stands at the head of the foreign universities,
having attracted as many English students as

CHILDHOOD AND YOUTH.

145

all the other European universities put together.
This is doubtless mainly due to the fact that Paris
was the unquestioned intellectual centre of Europe
throughout the long period of the Middle Ages,
though the intimate relations between England
and France may also have had their influence.
With the revival of learning Italian universities
became attractive, and Padua long retained its
pre-eminence as a centre of medical study. During
the seventeenth century the Dutch universities,
Leyden and Utrecht, began to attract English
students, and continued to do so to some extent
throughout the greater part of the eighteenth
century. It was not until the nineteenth century
that English students sought out the German
universities. Douai might perhaps have been
included in the list as the chief substitute for
university education for the eminent English

Catholics who have appeared since the Refor¬
mation.

Stated somewhat more precisely, it may be
said that of our 975 eminent men, 217 were at
Oxford (232 if we include those who had
also been at some other university) • 177 were

at Cambridge (191 if we include 'those who
had also been elsewhere) ; 76 came from Scotch
universities (Edinburgh 28, Glasgow 21, St.
Andrews 16, Aberdeen n) ; from Trinity College,

146 A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

Dublin, have come 27 men ; 23 (or 47 if we include
those who had previously been at some British
university) have been to one or more foreign
universities (Paris 23, Leyden 9, Padua 6,
Utrecht 3, Louvain 3, Gottingen 2, Bonn 2,
Heidelberg 2, etc.).

It may be interesting to compare these results with
those obtained by Mr. Maclean in his study of nineteenth
century British men of ability. He found that among
some 3,000 eminent men, 1,132, or 37 per cent., are
recorded as having had an English, Scotch or Irish
university education. Of these 1,132, 3 7 per cent,
were at Oxford, 33 per cent, at Cambridge, 21 per cent,
at Scotch universities, 7 per cent, at Dublin, and the
small remainder were scattered among various modern
institutions. It will be seen that university education
plays a comparatively small part in this group. This
may be in part due to the lower standard of eminence,
but it may also be due to the wide dissemination of the
sources of knowledge. In no previous century would so
encyclopaedic a thinker as Herbert Spencer have been able
to ignore absolutely the advantages of university centres.

In America also, as might be expected, a college
education has not been received by the majority of able
men. Thus Prof. E. Dexter (“ High Grade Men in
College and Out,” Popular Science Monthly , March,
1903) shows that not more than 3,237 out of 8,602
eminent Americans of the nineteenth century (or 37 per
cent., exactly the same proportion as Mr. Maclean found
in Great Britain) are College graduates ; those who
reach a high grade of scholarship are, however, more
likely to become eminent than those of low grade.

CHILDHOOD AND YOUTH.

147

While the fact of university education is
easily ascertained, it is less easy to define its
precise significance. The majority of our men
of pre-eminent intellectual ability have been at a
university ; but it would be surprising were it
otherwise, considering that the majority of these
men belong to the class which in ordinary course
receives a university education. It would be more
to the point if we knew exactly what influence
the universities had exerted, but on this our
present investigation throws little light. In a
considerable number of cases, at least, the uni¬
versity exerted no favourable influence whatever,
the eminent man subsequently declaring that
the years he spent there were the most unprofitable
of his life ; this was so even in the case of Gibbon,
whose residence at Oxford might have been sup¬
posed to be very beneficial, for at the age of 14
he had already been drawn toward the subject
of his life task. In a large number of cases,
again, the eminent man left the university with¬
out a degree, and in not a few cases he was ex¬
pelled. It is evident, however, on the whole,
that university life has not been unfavourable
to the development of intellectual ability, and
that while our eminent men do not appear to
have been usually subjected to any severe edu¬
cational discipline they have been in a good

148 A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

position to enjoy the best educational advantages
of their land and time.

Professor Sully in a study of the influence of
education on genius, with special reference to men
and women of letters (“The Education of Genius,55
English Illustrated Magazine , January, 1891), had already
reached conclusions in harmony with those here set
forth : “It cannot be said that the boys who afterwards
proved themselves to have been the most highly gifted
shone with much lustre at school, or found themselves
in happy harmony with their school environment.
The record of the doings of genius at college is not
greatly different. No doubt a number of the ablest
men have won university distinctions. In a few cases,
indeed, a thoroughly original man has carried everything
before him. At the same time it may safely be said
that a very small proportion of the men of genius who
have visited our universities have presaged their after
fame by high academic distinction. Thus it has been
computed that, though Cambridge has been rich in
poets, only four appear in her honours lists. (See
Article on “ Senior Wranglers,” Cornhill Magazine , vol.

45, p. 225) . In many cases we have too clear

signs of a disposition to rebel against the discipline

and routine of college life . We find further

that more than one distinguished men have expressed
in later life their low estimate of university training.
The conclusion that seems to be forced on us by the
study of the lives of men of letters is that they owe a
remarkably small proportion of their learning to the
established machinery of instruction.55

If this is not a very decisive result to

CHILDHOOD AND YOUTH.

149

reach, there is another less recognized method
of educational development which occurs so
frequently that I am disposed to attach very
decided significance to it. I refer to residence in
a foreign country during early life. The eminent
persons under consideration have indeed spent
a very large portion of their whole lives
abroad, whether from inclination, duty, or ne¬
cessity (persecution or exile), and it might be
interesting to ascertain the average period of life
spent by a British man of genius in his own
country. I have not attempted to do this, but
I have invariably noted the cases in which a
lengthened stay abroad has occurred during the
formative years of childhood or youth. I have
seldom knowingly included any period of less
than a year ; in a few cases I have included
lengthened stays abroad which were made about
the age of 30, but in these cases those periods
of foreign residence exerted an unquestionable
formative influence. I have excluded soldiers
and sailors altogether (as well as explorers),
for in their case absence from England at a very
early age has been an almost invariable and in¬
evitable incident in their lives, and has not
always been of a kind conducive to intellectual
development. Nor have I included the very
numerous cases in which transference from one

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

150

part of the British Islands to another has sufficed
to exert a stimulating influence of the greatest
importance. With these exceptions, we find that
as many as 371 of the eminent persons on our
list (nearly as large a proportion as received
a university education), during early life, and in
all but a few cases before the age of 30, have spent
abroad periods which range from about a year,
and in very many cases have extended over
seven years, up to extreme cases, like that of
Caxton, who went to Bruges in early life and
stayed there for 30 years ; or Buchanan, who
went to France at the age of 14 and was abroad
for nearly 40 years. It is natural that France
should be the country most frequently mentioned
as the place of residence, but France is closely
followed by other countries, and a familiarity
wdh many lands, including even very remote
and scarcely accessible countries, is often indicated.
It may further be noted that this tendency to an
association between high intellectual ability and
early familiarity with foreign lands is by no means
a comparatively recent tendency. It exists from
the first ; the earliest personage on our list, St.
Patrick, was kidnapped in Scotland at the age of
16, and conveyed over to Ireland ; it seems,
indeed, that in the nineteenth century the
tendency became less marked, yielding to the

CHILDHOOD AND YOUTH. 151

average modern Englishman's hasty and unprofit¬
able method of travelling. In any case, however,
it is evident that there has been a very marked
tendency among these men of pre-eminent
ability to familiarize themselves in the most
serious spirit with every aspect of nature and
life. It is equally marked among the men of
every group, among poets and statesmen, artists
and divines. It is not least marked in the case
of men of science from the days of Ray onwards ;
if it had not been for the five years on the Beagle
we should scarcely have had a Darwin, and
Ly ell's work was avowedly founded on his constant
foreign tours. In a notable number of cases
this element comes in at the earliest period of
life, the eminent person having been born abroad
and spent his childhood there.* The presence
of so large a number of our eminent men at a
university may be in considerable measure
merely the accident of their social position.
The persistence with which men of the first order
of intellect have sought out and studied unfamiliar
aspects of life and nature, or have profited by
such aspects when presented by circumstances,
indicates a more active and personal factor
in the evolution of genius.

* It may be noted that at least twelve of our eminent persons — seemingly a
large proportion — belonged on one side or the other to West Indian families,
whether or not they were born in the West Indies.

152

VI.

MARRIAGE AND FAMILY.

Celibacy- — Average age at marriage — Tendency to marry late — Age of
eminent women at marriage — Apparently a greater tendency to celibacy
among persons of ability than among the ordinary population — Fertility of
marriage — Fertility and sterility of eminent persons alike pronounced —
Average size of families — Proportion of children of each sex.

We have some information concerning the
status as regards marriage of 988 of the eminent
persons on our list. Of these, 79, being Catholic
priests or monks (twelve of them since the
Reformation), were vowed celibates.* Of the
others, 177 never married. We thus find that
25.9 per cent, never married, or, if we exclude
the vowed celibates, 19.4 per cent. It must of
course be remembered that a certain though not
considerable proportion of the unmarried were
under fifty at death, and some of these would
certainly have married had they survived. It

* One or two priests who belonged to the early centuries before the
celibacy of ecclesiastics was firmly established and who consequently married,
are not of course included.

MARRIAGE AND FAMILY

153

may be added that of the women considered
separately, about two-thirds were married,
though several of them (especially actresses)
who were unmarried formed liaisons of a more
or less public character and in a few cases had
several children.

It must not be supposed that all these
eminent men who lived long lives in celibacy
were always so absorbed in intellectual pursuits
that the idea of matrimony never occurred to
them. This was not the case. Thus we are
told of Dalton, that the idea had crossed his
mind, but he put it aside because, he said, he
c£ never had time.” In several cases, as in that
of Cowley, the eminent man appears really to
have been in love, but was too shy to avow this
fact to the object of his affections. Reynolds
is supposed only once to have been in love,
with Angelica Kauffmann ; the lady waited
long and patiently for a declaration, but none
arrived, and she finally married another ;
Reynolds does not appear to have been over¬
much distressed, and they remained good
friends. These cases seem to be fairly typical
of a certain group of the celibates in our list ;
a passionate devotion to intellectual pursuits
seems often to be associated with a lack of
passion in the ordinary relationships of life,

154

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

while excessive shyness really betrays also a
feebleness of the emotional impulse. In the
case of many poets who have adored their mis¬
tresses with passionate fervour in verse it would
appear that there has often been no accom¬
panying fervour in the love-making of real life.
Sir Philip Sidney, even though he was counted
the paragon of his time, with all his sweet sonnets
never shook the virtue of his Stella (Lady Pene¬
lope Rich), who yet eloped some years later
with another man who was not a poet. Even in
many cases in which marriage occurs, it is easy
to see that the relationship was rooted in the
man's intellectual passion.

The average age at marriage among the 503
men on the list concerning whom I have infor¬
mation on this point is 31. 1 years, the most
frequent age being 26 years. The distribution
is as follows :

Age ....

Under

20 —

25—

30—

35—

40—

45—

50—

55-

No. of cases

139

Per cent. . .

1-7

•7

I have ascertained the ages at marriage of
the fathers of the eminent persons on my list
(not including the fathers who are themselves of

MARRIAGE AND FAMILY.

155

sufficient eminence to be included in the list) in
73 cases ; they are distributed as follows : —

Under 20

20 —

25—

30—

35—

40—

45—

50—

The most frequent age of marriage of the
fathers is 25, but the average is 30 years. It
would thus appear that while both British
men of genius and their fathers tend to marry
at an abnormally late period, the former marry,
if anything, even later than their fathers.

If, however, in the 54 cases in which data
are forthcoming we compare the age at marriage
of the individual man of genius with that of his
(not eminent or less eminent) father the results
are not quite concordant. It is found that
five married at the same age as their fathers ;
while 29 were younger and only 20 older. The
deviations from the paternal example are often
very considerable in either direction, and it can
scarcely be said that the data before us suffice for
the conclusion that our British men of genius
have married later than their fathers.

If we compare the distribution of the frequency of
the marriage-age among British men of genius and their
fathers with the general population, the contrast is

156 A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

very striking. In England generally 57 per cent, of the
men who marry before the age of 30 marry between the
ages of 20 and 25, a larger proportion than in any other
European country. The curve for the British men of
genius much more nearly resembles that for the general
population in Sweden or in France, where of all European
countries marriage is latest. It is, however, of more
significance to compare British men of genius with the
professional classes of their own land, avoiding also
the fallacy of including second or subsequent marriages.
Ansell found that the average age of marriage for clerical,
legal and medical bechelors in the nineteenth century
before 1840 was about 28 years. There is thus a
small but distinct delay in the age of marriage among
men of genius, a delay which would be still more
marked if we can assume that the gradual ten¬
dency, noted by Ansell as in progress during the
nineteenth century, for marriage to take place later
among the professional classes, may be pushed back
to the previous century. It would be further
marked, if the comparison were made more strictly
between professional class men of genius and ordinary
professional class men, by omitting from the men of
genius those of aristocratic and plebeian class, among
both of whom I find that marriage has frequently
taken place very early.

While not disputing the statement of Ansell that
during the nineteenth century there was a progressive
tendency among the professional classes for marriage
to take place at a later age, I am by no means convinced
that we can push this tendency back and assert that
in earlier centuries marriage among the same classes
took place very early. This seems highly improbable.

MARRIAGE AND FAMILY

157

It is much more likely that while there have been fluctu¬
ations from time to time, the age of marriage has not on
the whole greatly changed, so far as the professional
classes are concerned, for many centuries past. I am
confirmed in this opinion by an examination of the age
of marriage which prevailed in various branches of my
own ancestry (belonging to the middle and upper middle
class) during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries ;
the general average was 29, and taking the seventeenth
century figures separately (though here the numbers
are few) it was decidedly higher. The average age, it
will be seen, lies between that which I have found for
the fathers of our eminent British persons and that
found by Ansell for the British professional classes
generally before 1840.

I find in the marriage “ allegations ” of the
Archdeacon of Essex for the years 1791-97, where
the age “ about ” is given, that the average for 20
bachelors is 26 years. The exact social class is not,
however, obvious.

It remains probable that when we take a sufficiently
high standard of intellectual eminence the age of marriage
is somewhat later than that of the professional classes
generally, but it would scarcely appear that the difference
is considerable.

The married women among the British people
of intellectual eminence concerning whom we
have definite information, form but a small
group of 26 persons, a group too small
to generalise about. Their average age at
marriage was 28 years, and the most frequent

158 A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

ages of marriage were 22 and 40. The distri¬
bution is as follows : —

Age .

Under 20

20 —

25—

30—

35-

40-

Number of

Persons

Although the numbers are so small, it is
probably not an accident that the most frequent
ages of marriage should be 22 and 40 years. . If
we take into account the ages before 30
only, we note a marked tendency to early
marriage, more marked than among English
women of the professional classes, more marked
even than among the general population. But
after the age of 24 there is a sudden and extra¬
ordinary fall, the ages of 26 and 27 are un¬
represented altogether, and, still more remark¬
able, the slight rise which eventually takes place
is postponed to the ages of 40 and 41, towards
the end of sexual life.

The interpretation of this curious curve is,
however, fairly obvious. The claims of the
reproductive and domestic life are in women
too preponderant and imperious to be easily
conciliated with the claims of a life of intellec¬
tual labour. The women who marry at the

MARRIAGE AND FAMILY.

159

period of greatest general and sexual activity,
between 25 and 30, tend either to have their
intellectual activities stifled, or else to be
seriously handicapped in attaining eminence.
The women, on the other hand, who have either
married very early and then escaped from,
or found a modus vivendi with, domestic and
procreative claims, or else have been able to
postpone the sexual life and its dominating
claims until comparatively late in life, enjoy a
very great advantage in attaining intellectual
eminence.

Thus it is that among British women of
genius very few marriages take place during
the period of great reproductive energy ; the
large majority of such marriages fall outside
the period between 23 and 34 years of age.
In the majority of cases marriage took place
before this period, the relationship, from one
reason or another, being very often dissolved
not long afterwards ; but in a very considerable
proportion of cases, marriage never took place
until after this period. Thus, Fanny Burney
married at 41, Mrs. Browning at 40, Charlotte
Bronte at 38, while George Eliot’s relationship with
Lewes was formed at about the age of 36 ; these
names include the most eminent English women of
letters. It would thus appear that there is a ten-

i6o A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

dency for the years of greatest reproductive ac¬
tivity to be reserved for intellectual development,
by accelerating or retarding the disturbing
emotional and practical influences of real life.
This tendency might still be beneficial, even
when the best work was not actually accom¬
plished until after a late marriage.

Ansell found the age of marriage of English spinsters
belonging to the professional classes, previous to 1840,
to be 24.75 years, while after 1840 it was 25.53. Mrs.
Sidgwick found the age of marriage of the sisters of
Oxford and Cambridge women students, in exact agree¬
ment with Ansell, to be 25.53 years, while the age of
marriage of the students themselves was 26.70. Among,
the general population in England the chief age of
marriage for women is between 20 and 25. At the end
of the eighteenth century the average age (“ about ”)
of 19 spinsters in the marriage allegations of the court
of the Archdeacon of Essex was 23.5 years.

We have now to consider more minutely
the status as regards marriage of our British
men and women of eminent intellectual ability.
When we eliminate the 79 individuals who
had taken vows of celibacy and the 177 others
who are definitely known not to have married,
we have 774. Of these, 732 are definitely known
to have married, while the remaining 42 are
doubtful. It is probable that the doubtful may
be equally divided between the married and

MARRIAGE AND FAMILY.

161

the unmarried. We cannot assume that the
same proportion of married and unmarried
prevails among them as among the known group,
for it would appear that in many cases the
omission of the mention of marriage is to be
regarded as a tacit statement on the biogra¬
pher’s part that the subject was not married.
If this is admitted we must conclude that in
the whole body of 1,030 persons, including the
vowed celibates, 277 never married, that is to say a
proportion of 26.8 per cent. If we omit the vowed
celibates, the proportion is reduced to 20 per cent.
If we leave out of account alike the vowed celibate
group and the small dubious group, and con¬
sider only those remaining persons, 909 in
number, of whom we have definite knowledge,
the percentage of those who never married is
found to be 19.4. If we consider separately
the most recent group, i.e.y those whose names
are contained in the Supplement to the Dictionary
of National Biography , the results are not widely
different ; the proportion of the unmarried being
in the ratio of nearly 18 per cent.

It is natural to ask the question whether the tendency
to remain unmarried is greater among our men of ability
than among the general population. It is, however,
obviously difficult to answer the question with any
precision, because we must of course compare the men

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

162

of ability with normal persons not only of the same
class but the same period. A consideration of the
results seems to suggest that there is a somewhat greater
tendency to celibacy among men belonging to the very
highest class of genius than there is among the rank
and file of able men, but that so far as the latter are
concerned the tendency to celibacy is not notably
greater than among the ordinary population of the same
social class. We see that the most recent group of
our eminent British persons, which probably shows
a somewhat lower general level of eminence, also shows
a somewhat slighter tendency to celibacy. It is probable
that among men of eminent ability the tendency to
celibacy has always been slightly, but only slightly,
greater than among the general population of the same
social class.

This conclusion is confirmed by an enquiry made by
Professor E. L. Thorndike (“ Marriage among Eminent
Men,” Popular Science Monthly , August, 1902). He
sought to ascertain the proportion of married individuals
among the 1,000 most eminent men in a biographical
compilation of contemporary Americans entitled Who's
Who in America. The standard of ability here demanded
is necessarily very much lower than that of the persons
in my list. It was found that of those who had reached
the age of 40, 12 per cent, were celibate, as against
15 per cent, for the most recent group (excluding the
women) on my list, nearly all of whom had far passed
the age of 40. For the whole male population over the
age of 40, in the United States, Professor Thorndike
states, the proportion of celibates is from 11 to 7 per
cent, decreasing with age.

Of the 753 persons whom we may reasonably

MARRIAGE AND FAMILY.

163

suppose to have married, 548 are definitely
stated to have had children, 112 are definitely
stated to have been childless, the remaining
93 are doubtful. If we assume that two-
thirds of this doubtful remainder may be
included among the fertile group, we may say
that 19 per cent, of eminent British men and
women who married have remained sterile. If,
however, we only take into consideration those
cases concerning which we have definite informa¬
tion, we find that the proportion of the sterile
is about 17 per cent. This is certainly less than
the real proportion for the whole married group,
for there can be little doubt that in a large
number of cases the biographers have made no
mention of children simply because there were
no children to mention. In many cases, I have
been able to verify this statement that the
merely negative absence of information meant
a positive absence of children, though this is
not invariably the case. We may assume that
the real proportion of individuals whose
marriages were sterile, for the whole of our
married group, is more nearly 19 than 17 per
cent.

If we consider the 55 women separately, we
find that one was a vowed celibate, and 19
others remained unmarried, while of the 35

1 1#

1 64 A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

who were married, 14 certainly had children
and 21 apparently had no children. A few
of the actresses occupy an uncertain borderland
between the married and the unmarried. They
have here, however (according to the same rule
as has been adopted with the men), been regarded
as unmarried, even though they had a recognised
family, whenever they were not generally recog¬
nised as married.

The number of sterile persons (like the number of
unmarried persons) among our eminent men and women
must be regarded as, in all probability, an abnormally
large proportion in comparison with the general popu¬
lation of the same period and class. It must be borne
in mind that the figures which have been given do not
represent the proportion of fertile and sterile marriages,
but the proportion of persons who have proved fertile
and sterile in marriage. As many of our eminent persons
entered into two or more marriages during life and very
frequently only proved fertile in one or in none, it is
evident that if we were to consider the ratio of fertile
and sterile marriages, instead of the ratio of fertile
and sterile persons in marriage, the prevalence of sterility
would be much more marked.

Simpson found that the proportion of sterile marriages
in two Scotch seafaring and agricultural villages was
about 10 per cent., while in the British peerage he found
that it was about 16 per cent. (J. Y. Simpson,
Obstetric Works , vol. 1. pp. 323, et seq.)

Professor Karl Pearson, manipulating the data fur-
nishedj^by Howard Collins, has found that during the

MARRIAGE AND FAMILY.

165

early part of the past century among the middle and
upper classes chiefly of British race, or belonging to the
United States — a class fairly comparable to those in the
present group — the total sterility was about 12 or 13 per
cent., rather less than half of this ( i.e ., about 6 per cent.)
being due to what may be termed “ natural sterility,”
while the remainder (i.e., 6 or 7 per cent.) must be set
down to artificial restraints on reproduction. At the
present day in the United States sterility has greatly
increased, and Dr. Engelmann finds it to exist in 20
per cent, of marriages in St. Louis and Boston in dis¬
pensary practice, and in 23 per cent, among the higher
classes in private practice, although among the foreign
elements in the population the proportion is very much
lower. In New Zealand also, at the other side of the
world, sterility is at the present day very marked.
Here the methods of registration enable us to form
an approximate estimate of the proportion of childless
marriages among a population of somewhat mixed
British race with a high standard of living, and the
proportion of marriages in which there is no surviving
child at the father’s death is about 16 per cent. ; but
it must be borne in mind that we have to allow for the
early death of the children in some cases, as well as
for the early death of the father. We have also to
remember that this increase of sterility is a modern
phenomenon, and that the artificial restraint of repro¬
duction to which it is in large part, if not mainly, due
is of recent development. All the indications point
to the conclusion that the sterility of our eminent men
is greater than that of their contemporaries of the same
social class.

I may add that among the 62 eminent married men

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

1 66

on my list who appear in the Supplement to the Dic¬
tionary of National Biography and therefore constitute
the most recent group, the proportion who are sterile
appears to be in about the ratio of nearly 20 per cent.,
which very closely approximates to the general average.

In Galton’s group of modern British men of science
the proportion of sterile marriages was higher ; there
were no children in one out of every three cases.

It is somewhat remarkable that, although
the number of infertile marriages is so large,
the average fertility of those marriages which
were not barren is by no means small. We have
fairly adequate information in the case of 281
of these eminent men. I have not included
those cases in which the biographer is only able
to say that there were “ at least ” so many
children, nor have I knowingly included the
offspring of second or subsequent marriages.
Whether the number of children represents gross
or net fertility, it is, unfortunately, in a very large
proportion of instances, quite impossible to say.
It is probable that in a certain proportion of
cases only the net fertility, i.e., the number of
children who survived infancy and childhood,
has been recorded. It is therefore probable
that the average number of children in these
fertile families, which is 4.8, must be considered
as slightly below the real gross fertility. The
average reached is not far from the normal

MARRIAGE AND FAMILY. 167

average, and very decidedly below that of the
families from which the men of genius spring.

With regard to the distribution of families
of different sizes, the results, as compared with
the figures already given, are as follows :

Size of Family

Normal Families

12.2

14.7

15-3

14 1

11. 1

8.6

7.8

6-3

Genius-producing Families

6.9

9.4

10.6

9.4

10. 1

10.4

8.9

6.7

Families of Men of Genius

14.2

16.7

10.3

ii-3

7-4

8.5

4.6

Size of Family .

over 14

Normal Families

3-9

2.7

1.4

1.0

•5

Genius-producing Families

5-7

4.7

4.9

4.4

2.2

1.9

3-4

Families of Men of Genius .

5-3

2.1

•7

2.1

1.0

Allowing for certain irregularities due to the
insufficient number of cases, the interesting
point that emerges is the return towards the
proportions that prevail in normal families ; it
will be seen that in all but a few cases the
families of men of genius differ from genius-pro¬
ducing families by approximating to normal
families. It must be remembered that in
neither of our groups are the data absolutely
perfect, but as they stand they confirm the
conclusion already suggested that men of genius

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

168

belong to families in which there is a high birth¬
rate, a flaring up of procreative activity, which
in the men of genius themselves subsides
towards normal proportions. The families of
the men of genius seem to differ chiefly from
normal families in showing a greater tendency
to variation ; there are more very small
families, there are more very large families.

It will be noticed that the families of sizes
ranging between three and six, both inclusive,
are unduly few. It might be supposed that this
is due to the artificial limitation of families, more
especially since, in Professor Pearson’s opinion,
the normal families themselves show a deficiency
in those groups probably due to this cause.
I am, however, inclined to doubt whether that
is so in the case of families of men of genius,
although to a small extent it may be so. It is
possible that from the present point of view
the group may not be homogeneous, but made
up in part of men with feeble vitality and a
tendency to sterility, and in part of men with a
tendency towards unusual fecundity, thus
leading to a deficiency of medium-sized families.

The relationship which has been found to exist
between our British genius-producing families, and the
families which the men of genius themselves produce
( i.e ., the increased fertility followed in the next genera-

MARRIAGE AND FAMILY. 169

tion by diminished fertility), does not represent a novel
result. It had already been found by Galt on ( English
Men of Science , p. 38) in his group of modern British
men of science. Eliminating sterile marriages he found
that the average size of the families of the men of science
was 4.7 children, almost exactly the same size as we
have found for the whole group of British men of genius.
Galton, however, only took living children into account.

There wTould appear to be a considerable resemblance
between the fertility of genius families and of insane
families. We see that our eminent British persons be¬
long to families of probably more than average fertility,
that they themselves produce families of probably not
more than average size, and with an abnormal prevalence
of sterility. In France, Ball and Regis, confirmed by
Marandon de Montyel, appear to have found reason
for a similar conclusion regarding the insane. They
state that natality is greater among the ascendants
of the insane than in normal families, but afterwards
it is the same as in normal families, while they also note
the prevalence of sterility in the families of the insane.
The question, however, needs further investigation
(Toulouse, Causes de la Folie , p. 91).

In the case of 278 families of our British men
of genius it has been possible to ascertain the
number of children of each sex. This is found
to be over 105 boys to 100 girls, a somewhat
higher proportion of boys than has prevailed
in Great Britain during the past century, but,
in accordance with the results we have reached
concerning the size of the families of our men

170

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

of genius, very much closer to the normal
average than are the sexual proportions pre¬
vailing among the families from which the men
of genius spring. If, however, I am right in
supposing that in a certain proportion of our
cases the biographers have stated not the gross
fertility, but only the net fertility (or the sur¬
viving children), we are not entitled to expect
so close an approximation to the proportions
at birth, since the preponderance of boys begins
to vanish immediately after birth. The figures
thus suggest that the families of men of genius
show the same tendency to excess of boys, which
we have already seen to be clearly marked in
the case of the families producing men of genius.
The data are too few to indicate whether there
is any corresponding excess of girls in the
families of women of genius.

VII.

DURATION OF LIFE.

The fallacy involved in estimating the longevity of eminent men — The real
bearing of the data — Mortality at different ages.

It has long been a favourite occupation of popular
writers on genius to estimate the ages at which
famous men have died, to dilate on their tendency
to longevity, and to conclude, or assume, that
longevity is the natural result of a life devoted to
intellectual avocations. The average age for dif¬
ferent groups, found by a number of different
inquirers, varies between sixty-four and seventy-
one years. One writer, who finds this highest
age for certain groups of eminent men of the nine¬
teenth century, argues that here we have a test
from which there is no appeal, proving the pre¬
eminence of the nineteenth century over previous
centuries, and its freedom from “ degeneration.”
It did not occur to this inquirer to ask at what age
the famous men of earlier centuries died. I have
done so in the case of a small group of ten eminent

1 72

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

men on my list, dying between the fourth and
the end of the thirteenth centuries — including, I
believe, nearly all those in my list of whose dates
we have fairly definite information during this
period — and I find that their average age is
exactly seventy-four years. So that, if this test
means anything at all, the freedom of the nine¬
teenth century from “ degeneration ” is by no
means proved.

In reality, however, it means nothing. If
genius were recognisable at birth there would be
some interest in tracing the course of its death-
rate. But it must always be remembered that
when we are dealing with men of genius, we are
really dealing with famous men of genius, and that
though genius may be born, fame is made — in
most fields very slowly made. Among poets, it
has generally been found, longevity is less marked
than among other groups of eminent men, and
the reason is simple. The qualities that the
poet requires often develop early ; his art is a
comparatively easy one to acquire and exercise,
while its products are imperishable and of so
widely appreciated a character that even a few
lines may serve to gain immortality. The case
of the poet is, therefore, somewhat exceptional,
though even among poets only a few attain per¬
fection at an early age. In nearly every other

DURATION OF LIFE.

173

field the man of genius must necessarily take a
long period to acquire the full possession of his
powers, and a still longer period to impress his
fellowmen with the sense of his powers, thus
attaining eminence. In the case of the lawyer,
for instance, the path of success is hemmed in by
tradition and routine, every triumph is only wit¬
nessed by a small number of persons, and passes
away without adequate record • only by a long
succession of achievements through many years
can the lawyer hope to acquire the fame neces¬
sary for supreme eminence, and it is not surpris¬
ing that of the eminent lawyers on my list only
five were under sixty at death. Much the same
is true, though in a slightly less marked degree,
of statesmen, divines and actors.

It is, therefore, somewhat an idle task to pile
up records of the longevity of eminent men of
genius. They live a long time for the excellent
reason that they must live a long time or they
will never become eminent. It is doubtless true
that men of genius —mostly belonging to the
well-to-do classes, and possessing the energy and
usually the opportunities necessary to follow
intellectual ends of a comparatively impersonal
and disinterested character, — are in a far more
favourable position for living to an advanced
age than the crowds who struggle more or less

174

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

desperately for the gratification of personal greeds
and ambitions, which neither in the pursuit nor
the attainment are conducive to peaceful and
wholesome living. This may well be believed,
but it is hardly demonstrated by the longevity of
eminent men.

At the same time it is of some interest to note
the ages of the eminent persons on our list at
death. Though the facts may have little sig¬
nificance in themselves, they have a bearing on
many of the other data here recorded. Excluding
women, and including only those men whose
dates are considered by the national biographers
to be unquestionable, the ages of eminent British
men at death range from Chatterton the poet,
at seventeen, to Sir A. T. Cotton the man of
science, at ninety-six. They are distributed as
follows in five-year age-periods : —

Age at Death .

under 20

rt-

€SJ

25—29

30—34

35—39

40—44

Men of Genius

Age at Death

45—49

55—59

60 — 64

65—69

70—74

Men of Genius .

130

i39

Age at Death

r-.

85—89

90 and over

Men of Genius .

IOO

DURATION OF LIFE.

175

If we consider the number for each year sepa¬
rately, certain points emerge which are disguised
by the five-year age-period, though the irregu¬
larities become frequently marked and inexplic¬
able. A certain order, however, seems to be
maintained. There is scarcely any rise from
twenty-seven to thirty-eight, and even at forty-
five only three individuals died ; but, on the
whole, there is a slow rise after thirty-eight,
leading to the first climax at forty-nine, when
sixteen individuals died ; this climax is main¬
tained at a lower level to fifty-three, when there
follows a fall to a level scarcely higher than that
which prevailed ten and more years earlier. This
lasts for three years ; then there is a sudden rise
from seven deaths at fifty-six, to twenty-five
deaths at fifty-seven, and this second climax is
again maintained at a somewhat lower level to
the age of sixty-seven, when the highest climax
is attained, with thirty-four deaths. Thereafter
the decline is extremely slow but steady, not
becoming accelerated until after eighty. Each
climax is sudden, and preceded by a fall.

A noteworthy point here seems to be the very
low mortality between the ages of fifty-three
and fiftv-seven. It seems to confirm Galton’s

conclusion, based on somewhat similar data, that
a group of men of genius is in part made up of

176 A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

persons of unusually feeble constitutions and in
part of persons of unusually vigorous constitu¬
tions. After the first climax at forty-nine the
feeble have mostly died out. The vigorous are
then in possession of their best powers and work¬
ing at full pressure ; fifty-seven appears to be a
critical age at which exhaustion and collapse
are specially liable to occur. The presence of
these two classes, — the abnormally weak and the
abnormally vigorous, — would be in harmony with
the explanation I have already ventured to offer
of the deficiency of medium-sized families left by
our men of genius.

The age of the women at death is ascertainable
in fifty-one cases. The average is slightly over
sixty-two years. As among the men, there would
seem to be among them a small group tending
to die early. The age-distribution arranged in
periods of five years is as follows :

Age at Death

30—34

35—39

45—49

50—54

Women of Genius .

x\ge at Death

55—59

60 — 64

65—69

75— 79

Women of Genius

Age at Death

80 — 84

85—89

90 and over

Women of Genius

177

VIII.

PATHOLOGY.

Relative ill-health — Consumption — The psychology of consumptives — Gout —
Its extreme frequency in men of ability — The possible reasons for the
association between gout and ability — Other uric acid diseases — Asthma
and angina pectoris — Insanity— The question of its significance — Apparent
rarity of grave nervous disease — Frequency of minor nervous disorders —
Stammering — Its significance — High-pitched voice — Spasmodic movements
— Illegible Handwriting — Short sight — Awkwardness of movement.

It has already been noted (p. 134) that at least 10
per cent, of our eminent British persons suffered
from a marked degree of ill-health, amounting to
more than minor discomfort, during the years of
their active lives. It is of some interest to observe
how these persons are distributed among the
various chief classes of ability. This distribution
appears to be as follows :

Soldiers and sailors .

3 per cent

Statesmen, etc.

* 7 yy yy

Men of science

•

Lawyers

• T3 yy yy

Men of letters .

* -^5 yy yy

178 A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

Artists . . . .16 per cent.

Poets . . . 16 „ „

Divines . . . 17 „ „

1 1 This marked prevalence of ill-health among divines
had already been noted by Galt on ( Hereditary Genius ,
pp. 255 et seq.). He analysed the 196 biographies
contained in Middleton’s Biographia Ev angelica, and came
to the conclusion that there is “a frequent correlation
between an unusually devout disposition and a weak
constitution.” He found that over 13 per cent, at
least were “ certainly invalids,” while a large number
of the others were ailing. He found also that of the

12 or 13 who were alone stated to be decidedly robust,
5 or 6 were irregular in their youth, while on the other
hand only 3 or 4 divines are stated to have been
irregular in their youth, who were not also men of notably
robust constitutions.

In a large proportion of cases no reference is
made by the national biographers to the diseases
from which their subjects suffered, nor to the
general state of health. This, however, we could
scarcely expect to find, except in those cases
in which the state of health had an obvious
influence on the life and work of the eminent
person. In most of these exceptional cases it
is probable that the biographers have duly called
attention to the facts, and though the information
thus attained is not always precise,-— in part
owing to the imperfection of the knowledge

PATHOLOGY.

179

transmitted, in part to the medical ignorance
of the biographers,* and in part to the deliberate
vagueness of their reference to a “ painful
malady/' etc., — it enables us to reach some very
instructive conclusions concerning the patho¬
logical conditions to which men of genius are
most liable.

Putting aside the cases of delicate health in
childhood, with which I have already dealt in
a previous section, the national biographers state
the cause of death, or mention serious diseased
conditions during life, in some 400 cases.

It is natural to find that certain diseased
conditions which are very common among the
ordinary population are also very common among
men of pre-eminent intellectual ability. Thus, a
lesion of the vessels in the brain (the condition
commonly described as paralysis, apoplexy,
effusion on the brain, etc.) is a very common
cause of death among the general population,
and we also find that it is mentioned 44 times
by the national biographers.

Consumption, also so prevalent among the
general population, occurred in at least 40 cases.
While many of the consumptive men of genius
lived to past middle age, or even reached a fairly

* Thus one of the national biographers informs us that a recent Archbishop
of Canterbury had an attack of catalepsy, which is a rare and severe form
of hysteria ; he probably meant apoplexy.

I2#

i8o

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

advanced age, the disease is responsible for the
early death of most of the more eminent of those
men of genius who died young — of Keats in
poetry, of Bonington and Girtin and Beardsley
in art, of Purcell (probably) in music. Some
appear to have struggled with consumptive
tendencies during a fairly long life ; these have
usually been men of letters, and have sometimes
shown a feverish literary activity, their intellec¬
tual output being perhaps as remarkable for
quantity as for quality, as we may observe in
Baxter and in J. A. Symonds. But Sterne
in literature, and Black, Priestley, Clifford and
other eminent men of science are to be found
among the consumptives. It is evident that
the disease by no means stands in the way of
any but the very highest intellectual attainments,
even if it is not indeed actually favourable to
mental activity.*

There is, however, a pathological condition
which occurs so often, in such extreme forms, and
in men of such pre-eminent intellectual ability,

* The psychology of the consumptive, — marked by mental exaltation,
hyper-excitability, the tendency to form vast plans and to exert feverish
activity in carrying them out, with, at all events in the later stages, egoism,
indifference, neurasthenia, — has been studied by Maurice Letulle (. Archives
Generales de Medecine , 1901) ; a summary of his study will be found in the
British Medical Journal , 4 May, 1901. An interesting symposium on the
mental state of the consumptive will also be found in the Archives de
Neurologic, Jan, 1 903*

PATHOLOGY.

181

that it is impossible not to regard it as having
a real association with such ability. I refer
to gout. This is by no means a common disease,
at all events at the present day. In ordinary
English medical practice at the present time, it
may safely be said that cases of typical gout
seldom form more than one per cent, of the
chronic disorders met with. Yet gout is of all
diseases that most commonly mentioned by the
national biographers ; it is noted as occurring
in 53 cases, often in very severe forms. We have,
indeed, to bear in mind that gout has been
recognized for a long time, and that it is more¬
over a disease of good reputation. Yet, even if
we assume that it has been noted in every case
in which it occurs among our 1,030 eminent
persons (an altogether absurd assumption to
make), we should still have to recognize its
presence in five per cent, cases. Moreover, the
eminence of these gouty subjects is as notable as
their number. They include Milton, Harvey,
Sydenham, Newton, Gibbon, Fielding, Hunter,
Jonhson, Congreve, the Pitts, J. Wesley, Landor,
W. R. Hamilton and C. Darwin, while the Bacons
were a gouty family. It would probably be
impossible to match the group of gouty men of
genius, for varied and pre-eminent intellectual
ability, by any combination of non-gouty indi-

I§2

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

viduals on our list. It may be added that these
gouty men of genius have frequently been
eccentric, often very irascible, — “ choleric ” is the
term applied by their contemporaries, — and occa¬
sionally insane. As a group, they are certainly
very unlike the group of eminent consumptives.
These latter, with their febrile activities, their
restless versatility, their quick sensitiveness to
impressions, often appear the very type of genius,
but it is a somewhat feminine order of genius.
The genius of the gouty group is emphatically
masculine, profoundly original ; these men show
a massive and patient energy which proceeds
“ without rest,” it may be, but also ‘‘without
haste,” until it has dominated its task and
solved its problem.

Sydenham, the greatest of English physicians, who
suffered from gout for thirty-four years, and wrote an
unsurpassed description of its symptoms, said in his
treatise, De Podagra , that “it may be some consolation
to those sufferers from the disease who, like myself and
others, are only modestly endowed with fortune and
intellectual gifts, to know that great kings, princes,
generals, admirals, philosophers and many more of
like eminence have suffered from the same complaint,
and ultimately died of it. In a word, gout, unlike any
other disease, kills more rich men than poor, more
wise than simple.” And another ancient writer, the
Jesuit, Father Balde, who in 1661 wrote a work which

PATHOLOGY.

183

he called Solatium Podagricorum, called gout Dominus
morborum et morbus dominorum.

I may remark that a much earlier ancient, Aretseus,
indicates the superior intelligence of the gouty in his
statement that they are specially skilful in the know¬
ledge of the drugs that suit them. In more recent
times a long series of physicians have testified to the
intellectual eminence of their gouty patients. Cullen
said that gout especially affected “ men of large heads
Watson stated that gout is “ peculiarly incidental to
men of cultivated mind and intellectual distinction.”
Sir Spencer Wells believes that, in the absence of here¬
ditary predisposition, gout is not easy to produce except
“ in men endowed with a highly organised condition
of the nervous system,” and again remarks ( Practical
Observations on Gout , 1856, p. 23), in reference to states¬
men, “ those who are known to be subject to gout are
among the most distinguished for an ancestry rendered
illustrious by ‘ high thoughts and noble deeds,5 for
their own keen intelligence, for the assistance that they
have afforded to improvements in arts, science and
agriculture, and for the manner in which they have
led the spirit of the age. . . I never met with a real case
of gout, in other classes of the community, in a person
not remarkable for mental activity, unless the tendency
to gout was clearly inherited.”

This association of ability and gout cannot be a
fortuitous coincidence. I have elsewhere suggested
(. Popular Science Monthly , July, 1901) that the secret
of the association may possibly to some extent lie in
the special pathological peculiarities of gout. It is
liable to occur in robust, well-nourished individuals.
It acts in such a way that the poison is sometimes in

184 A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

the blood, and sometimes in the joints. Thus not only
is the poison itself probably an irritant and stimulant
to the nervous system, but even its fluctuations may be
mentally beneficial. When it is in the victim’s blood
his brain becomes abnormally overclouded, if not intoxi¬
cated ; when it is in his joints his mind becomes ab¬
normally clear and vigorous. There is thus a well-
marked mental periodicity ; the man liable to attacks
of gout is able to view the world from two entirely
different points of view ; he has, as it were, two brains
at his disposal ; in the transition from one state to
another he is constantly receiving new inspirations, and
constantly forced to gloomy and severe self-criticism. His
mind thus attains a greater mental vigour and acuteness
than the more equable mind of the non-gouty subject,
though the latter is doubtless much more useful for the
ordinary purposes of life, for the gouty subject is too much
the victim of his own constitutional state to be always
a reliable guide in the conduct of affairs.

It is, however, possible only to speak tentatively of
the nature of the pathological relationship between
genius and gout, because the true nature of gout itself
is not yet definitely known. Some years ago the theory
that gout is caused by uric acid was very vigorously
promulgated by Garrod and others, and very widely
accepted ; this theory, however, no longer receives
such wide acceptance, and there is a tendency to regard
the uric acid produced in gout as a symptom rather than
a cause. According to another view which has lately
been maintained by Woods Hutchinson in a very able
discussion of this question (“ The meaning of Uric
Acid and the Urates,” Lancet , 31 January, 1903), gout
is certainly a toxaemia, but chiefly of intestinal origin

PATHOLOGY.

185

(the uric acid produced by the disease being com¬
paratively harmless), whence it is that the drugs good in
gout are such as either prevent intestinal fermentation
or absorb its products. This theory does not, however,
clearly answer the question why it is that some persons
and not others are liable to gout. A theory which has
been upheld by a long series of distinguished clinical
physicians regards gout as primarily and pre-eminently
a neurosis ; this was the belief of Stahl, Cullen, Laycock,
Dyce Duckworth (Dyce Duckworth, “ A Plea for the
Neurotic Theory of Gout,” Brain , April, 1880). I should
be going beyond my proper province if I were to state
that the facts here brought forward may be regarded
as an argument in favour of the existence of a neurotic
element in the factors producing gout. That, however,
my data confirm the belief in the prevalence of gout
among men of high intellectual ability can scarcely be
doubted.

I have sometimes found that physicians who readily
accept a special association between intellectual ability
and gout, are inclined to account for it easily by an
unduly sedentary life probably associated with excesses
in eating and drinking. This explanation cannot be
accepted. Many of the most gouty persons on my list
have been temperate in eating and drinking to an extreme
degree, and while it is true that the gouty have often
written much, the general energy, physical and mental,
of the gouty may almost be said to be notorious. Sir
Spencer Wells, in questioning the influence of sedentary
habits, referred to the remarkable activity of gouty
statesmen, and more recently Dr. Burney Yeo remarks
(British Medical Journal , 15 June, 1901): “The gouty
patients that I have seen have, I should say, in the

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

1 86

majority of instances, been extremely active and
energetic people, and it is often difficult to get them to
take sufficient rest.” I may note that in a much earlier
age Aretseus speaks of a gouty person who, in an interval
of the disease, won the race in the Olympiac games.

It may be of interest to point out in relation to the
connection between genius and gouty conditions, that
Marro (La PuberU , p. 256) has observed a very constant
relation between advanced age of parents at conception
and lithiasis in the child. We have already seen that
there is a marked tendency among some of our men of
genius for the parents to be of advanced age at the
eminent child’s conception ; and it is possible that
the connection between gout and genius may thus be in
part due to a tendency of some of the gout-producing
influences to be identical with some of the genius-pro¬
ducing influences. If this is so we might probably
expect to find that the age of the parents of those of
our men of genius who belonged pathologically to the
lithiasis group would be higher than the general average.
I find that the average age of 19 fathers of eminent
gouty men is 37.4, and of seven mothers 33.2 years,
while the average age of the fathers of eight eminent
men who suffered from stone or gravel is 37.2. These
averages are slightly, but very slightly indeed, higher
than those for our men of genius generally. It must
of course be remembered that the general averages are
higher than those for the normal population.

It must not, in any case, be supposed that in thus sug¬
gesting a real connection between gout and genius it is
thereby assumed that the latter is in any sense a product
of the former. It is easy enough to find severe gout in
individuals who are neither rich nor wise, but merely

PATHOLOGY.

187

hard-working manual labourers of the most ordinary
intelligence. It may well be, however, that, given a
highly endowed and robust organism, the gouty poison
acts as a real stimulus to intellectual energy, and a real
aid to intellectual achievement. Gout is thus merely one
of perhaps many exciting causes acting on a fundamental
predisposition. If the man of genius is all the better
for a slight ferment of disease, we must not forget that if
he is to accomplish much hard work he also requires a
robust constitution.

It may be added that the other diseases usually
described as of the uric acid group are common
among our men of genius. Rheumatism, indeed,
is not mentioned a large number of times (11),
considering its prevalence among the ordinary
population. But stone, and closely allied con¬
ditions, are mentioned 25 times (sometimes
in association with gout), and as we may
be quite sure that this is a very decided
underestimate it is certain that the condition has
been remarkably common.

There are two disorders, allied to gout and at
the same time distinctly neurotic in character,
which are decidedly common among our eminent
persons, and we must, I believe, regard them
as of considerable significance. I refer to spas¬
modic asthma and angina pectoris. Asthma is
distinctly connected with gouty., conditions, and
occasionally also it alternates with insanity ;

i88

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

it is a disorder common in individuals of high
nervous temperament.* I have noted it in
14 cases, often as beginning in early life. Angina
occurred in about nine cases, certainly a large
proportion considering that the disease is one
which has only been recognised in quite recent
times. It is probable that one or two cases
were not true angina but that simulated angina
which sometimes occurs in neurotic individuals ;
on the other hand several of the cases mentioned
as heart disease would certainly, had they been
more definitely described, be set down as
angina.

One other grave pathological state remains to
be noticed in this connection — insanity. To the
relationship of insanity with genius great im¬
portance has by some writers been attached.
That such a relationship is apt to occur cannot
be doubted, but it is far from being either so
frequent or so significant as is assumed by some
writers, who rake together cases of insane men
of genius without considering what proportion
they bear to sane men of genius, nor what relation
their insanity bears to their genius. The interest
felt in this question is so general that we may be
fairly certain that the national biographers have

'* I may refer to the slightly analogous respiratory defect in horses called
“roaring” (due to laryngeal hemiplegia), a neurotic disturbance apt to occur
in very highly-bred horses.

PATHOLOGY.

189

rarely failed to record the facts bearing on it,
although in some cases these facts are dubious
and obscure. They may often have passed over
gout without mention, but they have seldom
failed to mention insanity whenever they knew
of its occurrence. It is, therefore, possible to
ascertain the prevalence of insanity among the
persons on our list with a fair degree of approx¬
imation to the truth, as it was known to the
eminent man’s contemporaries. We thus find
that 13 were, during a considerable portion of
their active or early lives, thoroughly and un¬
questionably insane, in most cases with a clearly
morbid heredity which frequently showed itself
in early life ; in most cases also they died insane.
These were J. Barry, Clare, William Collins,
Cowper, Denham, Fergusson, Gillray, Lee, Pater¬
son, Pugin, Ritson, Romney, Smart. We further
find a second group consisting of individuals
who may be said, with a fair degree of certainty,
to have been once insane, but whose insanity
was either slight, of brief duration, or quickly
terminated by death, sometimes by suicide.
These were Borrow (?), Chatham (?), Cotman
(?), O. Cromwell (?), G. Fox, J. Harrington,
Hay don (?), Mrs. Jordan, Kean (?), Lamb,
Landseer, Lever, Rodney (?), D. G. Rossetti,
Ruskin (?), Tillotson, Sir H. Trollope, Whitbread,

190 A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

Sir C. H. Williams. A third group consists of
men who were perfectly sane during the greater
part of long lives filled with strenuous intellectual
activity, although in two or three cases there
was morbid mental heredity or eccentricity in
earlier life. These cases, 12 in number, which
may usually be fairly regarded as senile dementia,
are H. Cavendish, Colman, Marsh, Newton (?),
J. Pearson, Sabine, Southey, Stephen, Swift,
Warburton, S. Ward, T. Wright. It would be
possible to add a fourth group of borderland
cases in which the existence of actual insanity
was in most cases dubious, but marked eccen¬
tricity not amounting to insanity was unquestion¬
able. Such were Boswell and R. Browne and
Laurence Oliphant. William Blake clearly lived
on the borderland of insanity, and Dr. Maudsley
indeed declared many years ago that if the
story of his sitting naked with his wife in his
summer house is to be believed, he was certainly
insane ; this, however, one may be permitted
to doubt. Blake had strong opinions regarding
the action of the sun on the skin, and in
a day in which sun baths are regarded as
beneficial we may view more intelligently the
action of a man who was in many respects
a pioneer. I leave this group out of account.
Nor are the cases of suicide, at least ten in

PATHOLOGY.

191

number, necessarily to be regarded as cases of
insanity.

If we count every case of probable insanity
which may be inferred from the data supplied
by the national biographers, and even if we include
that decay of the mental faculties which in pre¬
disposed subjects is liable to occur before death
in extreme old age, we find that the ascertainable
number of cases of insanity is 44, so that the
incidence of insanity among our 1,030 eminent
persons is 4.2 per cent.

It is perhaps a high proportion. I do not
know the number of cases among persons of the
educated classes living to a high average age
in which it can be said that insanity has occurred
at least once during life. It may be lower,
but at the same time it can scarcely be so very
much lower that we are entitled to say that there
is a special and peculiar connection between
genius and insanity. The association of genius
with insanity is not, I believe, without significance,
but in face of the fact that its occurrence is only
demonstrable in less than 5 per cent, cases, we
must put out of court any theory as to genius
being a form of insanity.

It may be said that although the proportion
of insane men of genius is so small, a different
result would be attained if we took account of

192

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

those who sprang from insane stocks, or showed
their neuropathic unsoundness by producing
insane stocks. “ It is no exaggeration to say,”
Dr. Maudsley once boldly wrote, “ that there is
hardly ever a man of genius who has not insanity
or nervous disorder of some form in his family.”*
It is nearly twenty years since that statement was
made, yet neither Dr. Maudsley nor anyone
else has yet brought forward any sound evidence
in support of it. So far as the present inquiry
bears on the point, it may be said that the number
of those men of genius who are noted as having
a father or mother who became insane, or children
who became insane, is very small indeed, the
cases of insanity in the descendants being about
equal to those of insanity in the ascendants.
Less than two per cent, of our eminent persons
are stated to have had either insane parents
or insane children. We may certainly believe
that the records are incomplete, but there is
clearly no ground for believing that an insane
heredity is eminently productive of intellectual
ability. The notion sometimes put forward that
in discouraging the marriages of persons belonging
to mentally unsound stocks we are limiting the
production of genius is without support.

* H. Maudsley, ‘ ‘ Heredity in Health and Disease,” Fortnightly Review
May, 1886.

PATHOLOGY.

193

While I cannot compare with any precision
the liability of persons of genius to insanity with
the similar liability of corresponding normal
classes, there is one comparison which it is
interesting to make. We may compare the
liability of persons of genius to insanity with the
similar liability of their wives or husbands.
It is noted by the national biographers that
in 16 cases the wives or husband (there is only one
case of the latter*) became insane. We may
be fairly certain that this is a decided under¬
estimate, for while the biographers would hold
themselves bound to report the insanity of their
subjects, they would not consider themselves
equally bound to give similar information con¬
cerning the wives, while in other cases it may
well be that the record of the fact has been
lost. If now, in order to make the comparison
reasonably fair, we omit the second group of
slight cases of insanity and only admit the first
and third groups, we find that the proportion
of cases of insanity among the persons of genius
is 2.4 per cent. Among the conjugal partners,
on the other hand (I have not made any allowance
for second marriages), it is 2.2. Thus we see

* This was Mrs. Barbauld’s husband ; it may be added that the man to
whom Harriet Martineau was engaged became insane, and that Hannah
More’s marriage was prevented by what seems the morbid eccentricity of
the man.

194

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

that on a roughly fair estimate the difference
between the incidence of insanity on British
persons of genius and on their wives or husbands
is a neligible difference ; it is scarcely hazardous
to assert that British men of genius have probably
not been more liable to insanity than their
wives.

At the first glance it might seem that this
may be taken to indicate that the liability of
genius to insanity is exactly the normal liability.
That, however, would be a very rash conclusion.
If the wives of men of genius were chosen at
random from the general population it would
hold good. But there is a well-recognised ten¬
dency, — observed among all the mentally abnor¬
mal classes, — for abnormal persons to be sexually
attracted to each other. That this tendency
prevails largely among persons of eminent intel¬
lectual ability many of us may have had occasion
to observe. What we see, therefore, is not so
much the conjunction of an abnormal and a
normal class of persons, but the presence of two
abnormal classes.

With regard to the significance of insanity,
it must be pointed out that even if there is a
slightly unusual liability to insanity among men
of genius, there is no general tendency for genius
and insanity, even when occurring in the same

PATHOLOGY.

195

individual, to be concomitant. Just as it is
rare to find anything truly resembling genius
in an asylum, so it is rare to find any true insanity
in a man of genius when engaged on his best
work. The simulation of it may occur, — either
the “ divine mania ” of the artistic creator,
or a very high degree of eccentricity, — but not
true and definite insanity. There seem to be
very few certain cases — mostly poets — in which
the best work was done during the actual period
of insanity. Christopher Smart’s one master¬
piece may be said to be actually inspired by
insanity, and much of Cowper’s best work was
written under the influence of insanity. Periods
of insanity may alternate with periods of high
intellectual achievement, just as gout may
alternate with various neurotic conditions, but
the two states are not concomitant, and genius
cannot be accurately defined as a disease.

It must also be pointed out, in estimating the
significance of the relationship between genius
and insanity, that the insane group is on the
whole not one of commanding intellectual pre¬
eminence. It cannot compare in this respect
with the gouty group, which is not much larger,
and the individuals of greatest eminence are
usually the slightest or the most doubtful cases.
Among poets and men of letters, of an order

I3#

196 A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

below the highest, insanity has been somewhat
apt to occur ; marked eccentricity almost or quite
amounting to insanity has been prevalent among
antiquarians, but the intellectual eminence of
antiquarians is often so dubious that the question
of their inclusion in my list has been a frequent
source of embarrassment.

If we turn from insanity to other grave nervous
diseases, we are struck by their rarity. It is
true that many serious nervous diseases have only
been accurately distinguished during the past
century, and we could not expect to find much
trace of them in the Dictionary. But that cannot
be said of epilepsy, which has always been
recognised, and in a well-developed form cannot
easily be ignored. Yet epilepsy is only mentioned
twice by the national biographers — once as oc¬
curring in early life (Lord Herbert of Cherbury),
once in old age (Sir W. R. Hamilton). Even
these two cases, however, cannot be admitted.
In Lord Herbert of Cherbury’ s case the national
biographer has simply misunderstood a passage
in Lord Herbert’s Autobiography , in which he
tells us how, as he believed, he escaped the
epilepsy which he says is common in his family
by acquiring a minor disorder in childhood,
a “defluxion of the ears” which “purged his
system ; ” in Sir W. R. Hamilton’s case the

PATHOLOGY.

197

epileptoid fits occuring in old age most certainly
cannot be regarded as true epilepsy. There
appears to be nothing whatever in the records
of British genius favourable to Lombroso’s
favourite theory, that genius tends to occur
on an epileptoid basis.

While, however, grave nervous diseases of
definite type seem, to be rare rather than common
among the eminent persons with whom we are
dealing, there is ample evidence to show that
nervous symptoms of vaguer and more atypical
character are extremely common. The prevalence
of eccentricity I have already mentioned. That
irritable condition of the nervous system which,
in its Protean forms, is now commonly called
neurasthenia, is evidently very widespread among
them, and probably a large majority have been
subject to it. Various definite forms of minor
nervous derangement are also common.

Among the minor forms of nervous derangement
stammering is of very great significance. I have
ascertained that at least 13 of the eminent persons
on my list (12 men and one woman) stammered.
These were Bagehot (?), R. Boyle, Curran,
Croker, Erasmus Darwin, Dodgson, Mrs. Inchbald,
C. Kingsley, Lamb, Maginn, Priestley, Sheil,
Sidgwick. Seven others are noted as having
defects of speech which are sometimes stated

198 A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

not to amount to a stammer, but in other cases
were doubtless ordinary stammering. When it
is remembered that the normal occurrence of
stammering among adults is much below one
per cent, and also that my record is certainly very
incomplete, it will be seen that there can be no
doubt whatever as to the abnormal prevalence
of stammering among British persons of ability.
It may be added that 25 persons are described
as having a high, shrill, feminine, small or weak
voice ; this also is certainly very decidedly less
than the real number.

Stammering may be defined as a functional disturbance
of the central nervous system, congenital or acquired,
characterised by involuntary, disorderly spasms in
certain muscles concerned in vocal utterance.* In other
words, it is a spastic neurosis of muscular co-ordination.
Hartwell, following Marshall Hall, describes it as a
St. Vitus’s dance of the finer, more peripheral muscles
of speech. Stammering is frequently distinguished from
stuttering, but it is unnecessary to observe any dis¬
tinction here, as our knowledge of the precise nature
of the voice defects found among our men of genius is often
imperfect. We may with Wyllie regard 44 stammering ”
as the general term. Clouston, in his Nuroses of Develop¬
ment, regards stammering as specially associated with
rapid brain growth, and as most likely to occur between

* E. M. Hartwell (“Report of the Director of Physical Training,” Boston
School Document, No. 8, 1894) has dealt in an interesting manner with the
prevalence of this defect and its significance.

PATHOLOGY.

199

birth and the seventh year. In his careful investigation
among Boston school children Hartwell found that
stammering became more prevalent at the beginning
of accelerated growth, just before or just after such
growth culminates, and again after its cessation, and he
concludes that the irritability of the nervous system
of which stammering is an expression, is correlated
with the most marked upward and downward fluctuations
of the power of the organism to resist lethal influences.
Stammering is much less common in adults than in
children and is three to four times more frequent in
men. Among male adults its frequency has been most
carefully investigated in recruits, and its prevalence
found to be, according to the standard adopted, 3 to 6
per thousand in France (Chervin), as well as among
French recruits in the American War of Secession
(Baxter), 1.2 per thousand among native American
recruits during the same war (Baxter), and exactly
the same in Russia (Ssikorski).

In persons of neuropathic inheritance, stammering
is specially liable to occur. “ Even in the very intelli¬
gent,” Wyllie remarks ( Disorders of Speech , p. 22), “ it
may be found associated with nervousness and excit¬
ability as well as sometimes with more distinct indications
of irritability of the nervous system.”

Among the nervously abnormal classes stammering
and allied speech defects occur with especial frequency.
This is notably the case among mental defectives. Thus
in Berlin, Cassel found that 33.5 per cent, of defective
children showed infirmities of speech, and Dr. Eichholz,
a London School Inspector, states (“ The Treatment
of Feeble-minded Children,” Brit. Med. Journal , 6
September, 1902) that “ quite 75 per [cent, of defective

200

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

children speak imperfectly, ranging from complete
aphasia to a mere indistinct thickening, including
stammering, halting, lisping, word-clipping, mispro¬
nunciation, and the mainly purely vocal imperfections.”
Most of the minor speech defects mentioned would seem
to have been specially prevalent among our British men
of genius.

The tendency to very high-pitched voice which is
so remarkably common in men of intellectual ability
may possibly be due to a slight paralysis of the vocal
cords, such as is apt to occur in more marked degrees
in general paralysis (as observed by Permewan, Brit.
Med. Journal, 24 Nov. 1894), unless it is caused by a
general arrest of laryngeal development.

Involuntary spasmodic twitching movements,
or tic, of the smaller muscles, especially of the
face, would appear to occur with very unusual
frequency among our British men of genius,
although I have no figures of the prevalence of
such convulsive movements among the ordinary
population. I have noted the prevalence of
this nervous disorder in seven cases : Brougham,
W. Hook, Dr. Johnson, C. Kingsley, Marshall,
J. S. Mill, and Paley.

In another form a tendency to nervous inco¬
ordination is shown, by no means necessarily by
any actual tremours, in the tendency to bad
handwriting. Illegible handwriting is mentioned
in nine cases which certainly need to be largely
increased.

PATHOLOGY.

201

A tendency to scrawling or illegible handwriting has
been frequently noted among the men of genius of many
countries and is by no means due to too much writing,
for it is often traceable at an early age. It must be
remembered that the handwriting is a very delicate
indication of the nervous balance, and as such has been
carefully studied during recent years by Kraepelin and
his pupils, while alienists have long been accustomed to
attribute significance to the remarkable changes in
handwriting which often occur under the influence of
insanity. As Goodhart has truly remarked ( Lancet , 6
July, 1889), “ illegibility is a disease ” ; and he compares
it to the defects of speech.

Writer’s cramp, to which illegible handwriting is
occasionally due, is also, it must be remarked, not the
mere result of excessive writing, for, as Fere points
out (“Professional Neuroses,” Twentieth Century Practice
of Medicine , Vol. x. p. 707) it occurs more frequently
in high officials than in their subordinates who write
more, and is associated with mental over-work and
neurasthenic and neuropathic conditions.

Short sight, another condition frequently oc¬
curring on a basis of hereditary nervous defect,
is noted as existing in an extreme degree 16
times, and in 12 cases some other sense was
defective or absent.

A condition to which I am inclined to attribute
considerable significance from the present point
of view is clumsiness in the use of the hands
and awkwardness in walking. A singular degree
of clumsiness or awkwardness is noted many

202

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

times by the national biographers, although
they have certainly regarded it merely as a
curious trait, and can scarcely have realised
its profound significance as an index to the
unbalanced make-up of the nervous system.
This peculiarity is very frequently noted as
occurring in persons who are tall, healthy, robust,
full of energy. As boys they are sometimes
not attracted to games, and cannot, if they
try, succeed in acquiring skill in games ; as
they grow up all sorts of physical exercise present
unusual difficulties to them ; they cannot, for
instance, learn to ride ; even if fond of shooting,
they may be unable to hit anything ; in walking
they totter and shuffle unsteadily ; they are
always meeting with accidents. Priestley, though
great in experiment, was too awkward to handle
a tool ; Macaulay could not wield a razor or
even tie his own neckcloth ; Shelley, though
lithe and active, was always tumbling upstairs
or tripping on smooth lawns. It would be easy
to fill many pages with similar examples. It
is noted of at least 55 eminent men and women
on our list that they displayed one or more
such inaptitudes to acquire properly the muscular
co-ordinations needed for various simple actions
of life. In numerous cases this clumsiness was
combined with voice defect.

PATHOLOGY.

203

The reality of the connection between clumsiness
of muscular co-ordination and mental anomaly is clearly
shown by the fact that in idiocy, the most extreme
form of mental anomaly, this clumsiness is seen at its
maximum. “ In general,” remarks Dr. W. W. Ireland
(The Mental Affections of Children , 1898, p. 319),

“ idiots or imbecile children are awkward in their motions

and slow at learning to walk . No doubt

the cause of this lateness in learning to walk is in
some cases owing to weakness, in others to nervous
diseases ; but there are still cases where the child

always appeared strong and healthy . Their

gait, too, is awkward. Idiots in general have a bad

balance . The same awkwardness applies to

the hand.” The awkwardness in the case of idiots is
doubtless largely due to absence of mental power. In
genius the same result is brought about not by absence
of mental power, but by the streaming — not only
functionally, it is probable, but organically — of the
mental energy into other channels. A cause which we
may even consider opposite, leads to a like defect in
the muscular machinery.

204

IX.

STATURE.

Nature of the data — Tendency of British men of ability to vary from the
average in the direction of short and more especially of tall stature — Ap¬
parent deficiency of the medium-sized.

As regards stature, I have succeeded in obtaining
information in 362 cases ; in 276 cases the infor¬
mation is indefinite, in 86 cases definite.

In the first and larger group, which includes
women, 119 are said to be tall, 74 of average or
medium height, while 83 are short. There is
frequently some difference of opinion regarding
an eminent person's height, and in selecting the
most probable estimate I have borne in mind the
common tendency to regard a man who is really
of average height as short, and to regard a tall
man as of average height ; our standard of height,
in other words, tends to be above that for the
general population. There still results, however,
an abnormally small proportion of medium-sized
persons, although these form the bulk of the popu¬
lation. This discrepancy may be accounted for,

STATURE.

205

in part, by a tendency among biographers to
ignore stature when it shows no exceptional
deviation from the average.

The smaller group of men of genius whose
height is definitely known furnishes evidence of a
more reliable character. The distribution of
height in this group is as follows : —

ft. in.

5 o
5 1

5 2
5 3
5 4
5 5
5 6
5 7
S »

ft. in.

5 9

5 10

5 11

6 o

6 1

6 2

6 3

6 4

It will be noted that here, as in the other
group, we still have a marked deficiency of
medium-sized persons, and a predominance of
the tall over the short. It may be said that
here also there has been a tendency to ignore the
height of the average-sized men of genius, and
such a tendency may be admitted as, in the past
at all events, accounting for this deficiency ; the
very marked preponderance of the tall over the
short still remains.

If we take 5 ft. 9 in. as the average of the class
producing men of ability (this was the average

20 6

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

height of the fathers of Galton's English men of
science), we find that fifty of our men of genius
are above that height and only twenty-nine
below it. It will be observed that there is a very
considerable proportion of individuals over six
feet in height, and as various other persons on
our list are described as gigantic, although their
precise stature is not known, we must conclude
that there really is an excess of such abnormally
tall persons.

It is noteworthy that the men of genius who
spring from the lower social classes tend to be
abnormally tall. The lower social classes are
always shorter on the average than the upper
classes.* But it is remarkable that among the
very small number of our British men of genius
who have sprung from the lower social strata a
considerable proportion are not only tall, but
excessively tall. Of the seventeen British men
of genius who are known to have been 6 ft. i in.
or over in height, at least seven sprang from the
peasantry or a lower than middle-class social
group ; these include Cook, Cobbett, Trevitheck
and Borrow. It would appear, — although I do
not propose to discuss this question here, — that
the organic impulse to intellectual predominance,

* The evidence on this point has been brought together by H. de Varigny,
art. “ Croissance,” Richet’s Dictionnaire de Physiologic , Vol. IV.

STATURE.

207

most clearly seen in those individuals on our list
whose social environment has been against their
development, tends in some degree to be asso¬
ciated with a corresponding energy in physical
growth. There may well be in men of genius a
tendency to physical variation in both direc¬
tions, to deficiency as well as to excess, but it is
predominantly in the direction of excess.*

The average height of Cambridge students is nearly
5 feet 9 inches (cm. 174.8). Nearly all other classes
of the community in England are below this height.

Porter among St. Louis children (. Publications Am .
Statistical Soc. 1894) found that superior intellectual
capacity is associated with superior stature, and inferior
intellectual capacity with inferior stature. Christopher
(Journ. Am. Med. dss. 15 September, 1900), found the
same result among Chicago school children. This
result has been severely criticised and cannot be accepted
without qualification. Gilbert at Iowa found no such
correlation but rather the reverse. It must be remem¬
bered that there are various kinds and degrees of ability
and various ways of testing it. Nor can it be assumed
that results that hold good of average school children,
— even when we have definitely ascertained what those
results are, — necessarily hold good also of men of genius,
who are an extremely exceptional class.

Papillault {Bull. Soc. d’Anth. de Paris , 1899, P* 446)
has found that giantism is sometimes associated with

* The results here reached concerning British men of genius accord with
the results elsewhere reached on a somewhat wider basis in a paper
(“ Genius and Stature,” Nineteenth, Century , July, 1897) in which I have
discussed some of the problems here involved.

208

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

infantilism (more or less glabrous condition of body,
defective pigmentation, more or less under-development
of sexual organs and impulse, etc.), although infantile
persons have no necessary tendency to become giants.
He believes that there is some deep underlying but
yet undetermined connection between the giantism
and the infantilism. This is interesting in view of the
frequent association of some degree of infantilism with
some degree of gigantism in men of extraordinary intel¬
lectual ability.

Combe stated that individuals born in summer tend
to be taller than those born in winter. Although the
numbers are far too small for any decisive statement,
our British men of genius possibly show such a tendency.
Unless we take the extremely low heights, there is not
indeed an absolute majority of winter-born (October —
March) over summer-born (April — September) among
the short. But it certainty appears that while among
those whose height is below five feet five inches there are
as many as four winter-born to six summer-born, among
those who are over six feet one inch there is only one
winter-born to six summer born.

It was found by Arthur MacDonald that in America
first-born children of school age tend to be larger than
later children. This is not in accordance with the
results found at birth, nor can it be said to hold good
as regards the very meagre data furnished by the British
men of genius on my list. A strict comparison is not
possible, but it may at all events be said that the pre-
ponderence of eldest children among British men of
genius below five feet seven inches in height is somewhat
greater, — if indeed there can be said to be any real
difference, — than among those who are over five feet
ten inches.

209

PIGMENTATION.

Hair-colour and eye -colour — Method of classification — Sources of data— The
index of pigmentation — Its marked variation in the different intellectual
groups — Some probable causes for this variation.

If we turn to a further anthropological character,
pigmentation, or the colour of the hair and eyes,
I am able to bring forward a larger body of
evidence, and it is not difficult to supplement
the data furnished by the Dictionary with the help
of portraits, more especially those in the National
Portrait Gallery,* I have information on this
point concerning 424 of the eminent persons on
our list. In classifying by pigmentation I have
relied in the first place on the eye-colour, but
have allowed hair-colour a certain influence in

* The determination of the pigmentation of portraits has been in nearly all
cases by personal inspection. The only exception is in the case of several
eminent Scotch personages whose portraits were exhibited at the Edinburgh
Loan Exhibition of Scottish National Portraits, in 1884. Dr. Beddoe was
kind enough to lend me his own carefully annotated catalogue of this
Exhibition, with permission to make use of his notes. I availed myself of
this permission when necessary, with, I need scarcely say, entire confidence,
since Dr. Beddoe is our chief authority on the pigmentation of British
peoples.

210

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

modifying the class in those cases in which there
was marked divergence between the two in light¬
ness and darkness. I have sorted the eminent
persons into three classes, according as their eyes
were unpigmented (blue), highly pigmented
(brown), or occupying an intermediate position
(combinations of blue with yellow, orange or
brown).* This intermediate class has neces¬
sarily been large, and I have comprised within it
three sub-divisions: a fair medium, a dark medium,
and, between these two, a doubtful mediunu
I found that the 424 individuals might be thus
classed as regards eye-colour : unpigmented, 71 ;
light medium, 99 ; doubtful medium, 54 ; dark
medium, 85 ; fully pigmented, 115. The ques¬
tion arose as to how the results thus obtained
might be conveniently formulated, so as to enable
us to compare the different groups of eminent
persons. I finally decided to proceed with each
of these groups as follows : The doubtful medium
persons in each of these classes were divided

* The chief terms used, popularly and in literature, to describe eye-colour
are (besides blue, which is frequently applied to eyes by no means purely
blue), grey, hazel and black. “Grey” is applied to light mixed eyes, i.e.>
those which show blue with some admixture of yellow or orange; “ hazel,”
to dark mixed or greenish brown, and sometimes to fully pigmented brown
eyes ; “ black ” eyes do not really exist at all. It seems to me that the terms
“grey,” “hazel,” and “black,” should never be used when we are attempting
to define eye-colour with any degree of precision — a som what difficult
matter at the best. I may add that my division of eyes into these main
classes is substantially the same as Dr. Beddoe’s.

PIGMENTATION.

21 1

equally between the fair medium and the dark
medium ; then two-thirds of the fair medium
persons were added to the fair class, the remaining
third to the dark class, and, likewise, two Thirds
of the dark medium were added to the dark class,
the remaining third to the fair class ; the five
classes were thus reduced to two, and, on multi¬
plying the fair by ioo and dividing by the dark,
we obtain what may be called an index of pig¬
mentation. This method of notation is really
simple, and is quite sufficiently accurate for the
nature of the data dealt with ; it will be seen
that by its use an index of ioo means that fair
and dark people are equally numerous in a group,
while indices over ioo mean an excess of fair
persons, and indices under ioo an excess of dark
persons.

I may remark concerning this index of pig¬
mentation that, while it yields results which are
strictly comparable among themselves in the
hands of a single observer, proceeding in a uniform
manner, it is doubtful whether two observers
would carry it out in a strictly identical manner.
Beddoe’s index of nigrescence, founded on hair-
colour and applied directly to living subjects, is
a convenient formula for indicating the degree of
pigmentation. But in my observations, largely
made on portraits (in which the hair was often

212

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

whitened by age, absent, concealed beneath a
wig, or obscured by the darkening of the paint),
it was necessary to accept eye-colour as the
primary basis of classification.

I have been able to obtain the index of pig¬
mentation in the case of fourteen groups. I
present them with their index of pigmentation in
the order of decreasing fairness, noting also the
number of individuals in each group. Some indi¬
viduals, I may remark, are included in more than
one group, while various miscellaneous persons
are not included at all.

Group, with Number of Individuals.

Index of
Pigmentation.

Social and political reformers

(6) ...

400

Scholars ...

(7)

200

Lawyers ...

(i5) ...

114

Soldiers ...

(23)

I IO

Men of science ...

(45)

109

Sailors

(r3)

100

Philosophers

(12)

loo

Painters, sculptors and architects

(38) •••

P oets ... ... ... ...

(58) •••

Men and women of letters

(98) ...

Statesmen

(49)

Explorers ...

(7) -

Divines

(44)

Actors and actresses

(18)

Although the numbers are for some groups few,
and we must not regard the index as giving
results which are quite invariable, we may accept

PIGMENTATION.

213

the general results with some confidence. It may
be regarded as fairly certain that the first six
groups do really tend to be unusually fair, and
the last three groups unusually dark. The aver¬
age index of pigmentation for the British popula¬
tion generally probably lies between eighty and
one hundred, but it varies greatly if we take
separate districts, being very high in many parts
of Scotland and very low in many parts of the
West of England. It is fairly obvious that this
fact furnishes, to some extent, a key to the
position of the various groups in reference to
this index. Sailors, who tend to be fair, come
largely from the coast, and the inhabitants of
the coast are usually fairer than people from
inland districts. Men of science come largely
from regions where the population is fair. Artists
tend to be fair, both in England and France, and
it is at first a little surprising to find that they do
not appear higher upon the list. It may be pointed
out, however, that a large proportion of our most
eminent painters come from East Anglia, a
region in which, though the hair is not very dark,
the eye-colour is very frequently brown.* Actors

* During a recent walk from Sudbury to Hadleigh, in Central Suffolk, I
noted the eye-colour of the children and adults I passed, and found that the
proportion of brownish eyes to bluish eyes was about 70 per cent, to 30 per
cent. On the following day I found myself in Colchester, Essex, on Market
day ; here the proportions were reversed : there were about 70 per cent,
bluish eyes to about 30 per cent, brownish.

214

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

come largely from regions where the population
is dark. But this factor, though it accounts for
much, will not account for everything, nor will
it explain the decisiveness of the results. Divines
come from all parts of the United Kingdom, yet
they tend to be distinctly dark#. The darkness
of eminent actors is very marked, whatever their
place of origin ; only one of the eighteen on my
list, Munden, falls in the unpigmented group,
and he is certainly not an actor of the highest
rank. The extreme fairness of political agitators
and social reformers (religious reformers, who
tend to be decidedly dark, not being included)
is peculiar. The darkness of travellers and ex¬
plorers may be explained by a kind of natural
selection, fair persons speedily succumbing to the
effects of tropical climates ; it may be remarked
that this group would have been still darker if it
had not been for the presence of two or three
individuals, of so-called Celtic type, who are fairly
pigmented on the whole, though their eyes are
not dark. It would, however, be out of place
here to discuss fully the very interesting question
of the significance of pigment in relation to in¬
tellectual ability, f

* This result has also been reached by Dr. Beddoe.

t I have briefly discussed it in an article entitled “ The Comparative
Abilities of the Fair and the Dark,” Monthly Review , August, 1901.

PIGMENTATION.

215

The results of this enquiry are on the whole con¬
firmed by an enquiry I have elsewhere carried out as
to the index of pigmentation of all the persons whose
portraits are to be seen in the National Portrait Gallery,
and whose eyes are fairly visible ( Monthly Review ,
August, 1901). I may say that I regard the results
of my observations in the National Portrait Gallery
(though some of the data are common to both series
of observations) as distinctly more trustworthy in the
light they throw on the relationship of pigmentation
to intellectual avocation, not only because the numbers
are larger but also because the standard of ability is
much lower, so that the influences of predilection in
the direction of the intellectual ability is less compli¬
cated by the possibly disturbing factor of very high and
versatile intellectual ability. Thus in the small group
of very eminent sailors we have several very exceptional
men like Cook and Dampier, who were notably dark ;
the large number of more typical but less eminent sailors
in the National Portrait Gallery give us a higher index,
which is doubtless nearer to the truth. (I should add,
however, that the index of pigmentation was here
obtained in a way that at one point slightly differed
from that adopted in the later series, i.e ., in the
National Portrait Gallery groups I simply divided
all the medium persons in each group equally between
the unpigmented and the fully pigmented sections.)

Group, with Number of Individuals.

Index of
Pigmentation.

Political reformers and agitators

(20)

233

Sailors ... . • • • • . ...

(45)

150

Men of science

(53)

121

Soldiers

(42)

11 3

Artists ... ... ... ...

(74)

216 A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS..

Group, with Number of Individuals.

Index of
Pigmentation.

Poets ...

(56)

•

Royal family ...

(66)

•

■^4

Lawyers

(56)

... 107

Created peers and their sons ...

(89)

102

Statesmen .

(53)

Men and women of letters

(8?)

Hereditary aristocracy

(149)

Divines...

(57)

Men of low birth

(12)

Explorers

Actors and actresses ...

(16)

217

OTHER CHARACTERISTICS.

Personal beauty or the reverse — The eyes — Shyness and timidity — Tendency
to melancholy — Persecution by the world.

A physical characteristic to which the na¬
tional biographers frequently allude, though I
do not propose to attempt to give it any numerical
values, is personal beauty or the absence of it.
A very large proportion of persons are referred
to as notably handsome, comely, imposing ; a
very considerable, but smaller, proportion are
spoken of as showing some disproportion or
asymmetry of feature, body or limbs, as notably
peculiar or even ludicrous in appearance. A not
uncommon type is that of the stunted giant, with
massive head and robust body, but very short legs.

There is one feature, however, which is noted
as striking and beautiful in a very large number
of cases, even in persons who are otherwise wholly
without physical attractions. That is the eyes.
It is very frequently found that descriptions of the

218

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

personal appearance of men of genius, however
widely they may differ in other respects, agree in
noting an unusual brilliancy of the eyes. Thus
the eyes of Burns were said by one observer to
be like “ coals of living fire,” and Scott writes
that they “ literally glowed ” ; while of Chatter-
ton's eyes it was said that there was “ fire rolling
at the bottom of them.” It is significant that
both of these instances, chosen almost at random,
were poets. While, however, the phenomenon
seems to be noted more frequently and with
more emphasis in poets, it is found among men
of genius of all classes. One may suppose it to
be connected with an unusual degree of activity
of the cerebral circulation.

In regard to the mental and emotional dis¬
position of British persons of genius, the national
biographers enable us to trace the prevalence of
one or two tendencies. One of these is shy¬
ness, bashfulness, or timidity. This is noted in
sixty-eight cases, while fifty are described as
very sensitive, nervous, or emotional, and,
although this is not equivalent to a large per¬
centage, it must of course be remembered that
the real number of such cases is certainly very
much larger, and also that the characteristic is
in many cases extremely well marked. Some
had to abandon the profession they had chosen

OTHER CHARACTERISTICS.

219

on account of their nervous shyness at appear¬
ing in public ; others were too bashful to declare
their love to the women they were attracted
to ; Sir Thomas Browne, one of the greatest
masters of English prose, was so modest that
he was always blushing causelessly ; Hooker,
one of the chief luminaries of the English Church,
could never look any one in the face ; Dryden,
the recognized prince of the literary men of his
time, was, said Congreve, the most easily put
out of countenance of any man he had ever
met. It is not difficult to see why the timid
temperament, — which is very far from involving
lack of courage,* — should be especially associated
v/ith intellectual aptitudes. It causes a distaste
for social contact and so favours those forms of
activity which may be exerted in solitude, these
latter, again, reacting to produce increased awk¬
wardness in social relations. Moreover, the
mental state of timidity, which may be regarded
as a mild form of folie du doute , a perpetual self¬
questioning and uncertainty, however unpleasant
it may be from the social point of view, is by no
means an unsatisfactory attitude in the face of
intellectual problems, for it involves that un~

* “ None are so bold as the timid when they are fairly roused,” wrote Mrs.
Browning in her Letters. The same point has been brought out by Dugas in
his essay on timidity.

220

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

ceasing self-criticism which is an essential ele¬
ment of all good intellectual work, and has marked
more or less clearly the greatest men of scientific
genius. Fundamentally, no doubt, timidity is a
minor congenital defect of the nervous mechan¬
ism, fairly comparable to stammering. It may
be noted that the opposite characteristic of over
self-confidence, with more or less tendency to
arrogance and insolence, is also noted, but
with much less frequency, and usually in
men whose eminence is not due to purely
intellectual qualities. In some cases, it would
seem, the two opposite tendencies are com¬
bined, the timid man seeking refuge from his
own timidity in the assumption of arrogance.

In a certain number of cases information is
given as to the general emotional disposition,
whether to melancholy and depression, or of a
gay, cheerful and genial character. In eighty-five
cases the disposition is noted as melancholy, in
twenty as cheerful or jovial ; in seven cases
both dispositions are noted as occurring, in
varying association, in the same person.

This marked tendency to melancholy among persons
of intellectual aptitude is no new observation, but
was indeed one of the very earliest points noted
concerning men of genius. According to a saying
attributed to Aristotle, all men of ability are melan¬
choly, and Reveille-Parise, one of the first and still

OTHER CHARACTERISTICS.

221

one of the most sagacious of the modern writers on
genius, devoted a chapter to the point. It is not
altogether difficult to account for this phenomenon.
Melancholy children, as Marro found, are in large pro¬
portion the offspring of elderly fathers, as we have
also found our persons of intellectual eminence to be.
A tendency to melancholy, again, even though it may
always fall short of insane melancholia, is allied to those
neurotic and abnormal conditions which we have found
to be not infrequent. Moreover, it certainly has a
stimulating influence on intellectual work. The more
normal men of cheerful disposition instinctively seeks
the consolations of society. The melancholy man,
like the shy man, is ill-adapted to society, and more
naturally seeks his consolations in a non-social field,
such as that of the intellect, often plunging more deeply
into intellectual work the more profound his melancholy
becomes. Wagner said that his best work was done
at times of melancholy, and among the eminent men on
our list several writers are mentioned who turned to
authorship as a relief to personal depression. It may
also be said that not only is melancholy a favourable
condition for intellectual work, but that the sedentary
and nerve-exhausting nature of nearly all forms of
intellectual work in turn reacts to emphasize or produce
moods of depression.

Another cause that serves largely to accentuate
the tendency of men of genius to melancholy is the
attitude of the world towards them. Every original
worker in intellectual fields, every man who makes some
new thing, is certain to arouse hostility where he does
not meet with indifference. He sets out in his chosen
path, ignorant of men, but moved by high ideals, content

222

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

to work in laborious solitude and to wait, and when at
last he turns to his fellows, saying, “ See what I have
done for you ! ” he often finds that he has to meet only
the sneering prejudices of the few who might have com¬
prehended, and the absolute indifference of the many
who are too absorbed in the daily struggle for bread
to comprehend any intellectual achievement. The wise
worker knows this and arms himself with benevolent
contempt, alike against the few and the many. Thus
of one of the great men of science on our list, Stephen
Hales, it was said that he could look “ even upon those
who did him unkind offices without any emotion of
particular indignation, not from want of discernment
or sensibility ; but he used to consider them only like
those experiments which, upon trial, he found could never
be applied to any useful purpose, and which he therefore
calmly and dispassionately laid aside.” But it has
to be remembered that the prevailing temperament
of men of genius is one of great nervous sensitiveness
and irritability, — so that, as Reveille-Parise puts it,
they are apt to “ roar at a pin-prick,” — and even when
they are well aware what the opinion of the world is
worth, they still cannot help being profoundly affected
by that opinion. Hence a fruitful source of melan¬
choly.

The attitude of the world towards the man of
original intellect, being not merely one of disdain
or indifference, but constantly tending to become
aggressive, has certainly reinforced the tendency
to melancholy. It is practically impossible to
estimate the amount of persecution to which this
group of pre-eminent British persons has been

OTHER CHARACTERISTICS.

223

subjected, for it has shown itself in innumerable
forms, and varies between a mere passive refusal
to have anything whatever to do with them or
their work and the active infliction of physical
torture and death. There is, however, at least
one form of persecution, very definite in character,
which it is easy to estimate, since the national
biographers have probably in few cases passed it
over. I refer to imprisonment. I find that at
least 160, or over 16 per cent., of our 975 eminent
men were imprisoned, once or oftener, for periods
of varying length, while many others only escaped
imprisonment by voluntary exile. It is true that
the causes of imprisonment were various, but
even imprisonment for such a cause as debt may
usually be taken to indicate an anomalous lack of
adjustment to the social environment. The man
of genius is an abnormal being, thus arousing the
instinctive hostility of society, which by every
means seeks to put him out of the way.

It will be seen that the various personal traits
noted in this section, while completing our picture
of British persons of genius, may be linked on at
numerous points to other traits we have pre¬
viously noted. It only remains to gather together
the threads we have traced and to ascertain
how far they may be harmoniously woven into a
complete whole.

224

XII.

CONCLUSIONS.

The characteristics of men of genius probably to a large extent independent
of the particular field their ability is shown in — What is the temperament
of genius ? — In what sense genius is healthy — The probable basis of inapti¬
tude for ordinary life — In what sense genius is a neurosis.

It may be reasonable to ask, in estimating the
significance of those characteristics of British
persons of genius we have here ascertained, to
what degree an investigation of persons of emi¬
nent intellectual aptitude belonging to other
countries would bring out different results. It
is not possible to answer this question quite
decisively. The fact, however, that at many
points our investigation simply gives precision to
characteristics which have been noted as marking
genius in various countries seems to indicate that
in all probability the characters that constitute
genius are fundamentally alike in all countries,
though it may well be that minor modifications
are associated with national differences. The

CONCLUSIONS.

225

point is one that can only be decisively settled
when similar investigations are carried out con¬
cerning similar groups of persons of superior
intellectual ability belonging to various countries.

A further question may be asked : How far
has confusion been introduced by lumping to¬
gether persons whose intellectual aptitudes have
been shown in very different fields ? May not the
average biological characteristics of the man of
science be the reverse of those of the actor, and
those of the divine at the other extreme from
those of the lawyer ? I believe that Mr. Galton is
inclined to think that the investigation of groups
of men with different intellectual aptitudes would
yield different results. As, however, we have
seen, the investigation of eminent British persons,
when carried out without reference to the par¬
ticular fields in which their activities have been
exercised, yields results which, when comparable
with those of Galton, do not usually show any
striking discrepancies. Nor, so far as I have at
present looked into the matter, does it appear that
on the whole, when we consider separately the
various groups of British eminent persons we are
here concerned with, such groups show any widely
varying biological characters. Certain variations
there certainly are ; we have seen that the geo¬
graphical distribution of the various kinds of

226

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

intellectual activity to some extent varies, and
also that in pigmentation there are in some cases
marked variations. On the whole, however, it
would appear that, whatever the field in which it
displays itself, the elements that constitute the
temperament of genius show a tendency to re¬
semble each other.

I shall probably be asked to define precisely
what the “ temperament ” is that underlies
genius. That, however, is a question which the
material before us only enables us to approach
very cautiously. There are two distinct ten¬
dencies among writers on genius. On the one
hand are those who seem to assume that genius
is a strictly normal variation. This is the stand¬
point of Galton.* On the other hand are those,
chiefly alienists, who assume that genius is funda¬
mentally a pathological condition and closely
allied to insanity. This is the position of Lom-
broso, who compares genius to a pearl, — so regard¬
ing it as a pathological condition, the result of
morbid irritation, which by chance has produced
a beautiful result, — and who seeks to find the
germs of genius among the literary and artistic
productions of the inmates of lunatic asylums.

It can scarcely be said that the course of our

* In the preface to the second edition of Hereditaiy Genius Mr. Galton
has somewhat modified this view.

CONCLUSIONS.

227

investigation, uncertain as it may sometimes
appear, has led to either of these conclusions.
On the one hand, we have found along various
lines the marked prevalence of conditions
which can hardly be said to be consonant
with a normal degree of health or the normal
conditions of vitality ; on the other hand, it
cannot be said that we have seen any ground to
infer that there is any general connection between
genius and insanity, or that genius tends to pro¬
ceed from families in which insanity is prevalent ;
for while it is certainly true that insanity occurs
with unusual frequency among men of genius,
it is very rare to find that periods of intellectual
ability are combined with periods of insanity,
and it is, moreover, notable that (putting aside
senile forms of insanity) the intellectual achieve¬
ments of those eminent men in whom unques¬
tionable insanity has occurred have rarely been
of a very high order. We cannot, therefore,
regard genius either as a purely healthy variation
occurring within normal limits, nor yet as a
radically pathological condition, not even as an
alternation — a sort of allotropic form — of in¬
sanity. We may rather regard it as a highly
sensitive and complexly developed adjustment of
the nervous system along special lines, with con¬
comitant tendency to defect along other lines.

I5#

228

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

Its elaborate organization along special lines
is often built up on a basis even less highly
organized than that of the ordinary average man.
It is no paradox to say that the real affinity of
genius is with congenital imbecility rather than
with insanity. If indeed we consider the matter well
we see that it must be so. The organization that
is well adapted for adjustment to the ordinary
activities of the life it is born into is not prompted
to find new adjustments to suit itself. The or¬
ganic inhibition of ordinary activities is, necessarily,
a highly favourable condition for the development
of extraordinary abilities, when these are present in
a latent condition. Hence it is that so many men
of the highest intellectual aptitudes have so often
shown the tendency to muscular incoordination
and clumsiness which marks idiots, and that even
within the intellectual sphere, when straying
outside their own province, they have frequently
shown a lack of perception which placed them on
scarcely so high a level as the man of average
intelligence. It is not surprising that by means
of the idiots savants , the wonderful calculators,
the mattoids and “ men of one idea,” and the
men whose intellectual originality is strictly con¬
fined to one field, we may bridge the gulf that
divides idiocy from genius.

Since a basis of organic inaptitude — a condition

CONCLUSIONS.

229

which in a more marked and unmitigated form
we call imbecility— may thus often be traced at
the foundation of genius, we must regard it as a
more fundamental fact in the constitution of
genius than the undue prevalence of insanity,
which is merely a state of mental dissolution, in
nearly every case temporarily or permanently
abolishing the aptitude for intellectual achieve¬
ment. It must not, however, be hastily concluded
that the prevalence of insanity among men of
genius is an accidental fact, meaningless or un¬
accountable. In reality it is a very significant
fact. The intense cerebral energy of intellectual
reaction involves an expenditure of tissue which
is not the dissolution of insanity, for waste and
repair must here be balanced, but it reveals an
instability which may sink into the mere disso¬
lution of insanity, if the balance of waste and
repair is lost and the high pressure tension falls
out of gear. Insanity is rather a Nemesis of the
peculiar intellectual energy of genius exerted at
a prolonged high tension than an essential ele¬
ment in the foundation of genius. But a ger¬
minal nervous instability, such as to the ordinary
mind simulates some form of insanity, is certainly
present from the first in many cases of genius and
is certainly of immense value in creating the
visions or stimulating the productiveness of men

230

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

of genius. We have seen how significant a gouty
inheritance seems to be. A typical example of
this in recent years was presented by William
Morris, a man of very original genius, of great
physical vigour and strength, of immense capacity
for work, who was at the same time abnormally
restless, very irritable, and liable to random ex¬
plosions of nervous energy. Morris inherited
from his mother's side a peculiarly strong and
solid constitution ; on his father's side he in¬
herited a neurotic and gouty strain. It is evi¬
dent that, given the robust constitution, the
germinal instability furnished by such a morbid
element as this — falling far short of insanity —
acts as a precious fermentative element, an
essential constituent in the man's genius. The
mistake usually made is to exaggerate the
insane character of such a fermentative element,
and at the same time to ignore the element of
sane and robust vigour which is equally essen¬
tial to any high degree of genius. We may
perhaps accept the ancient dictum of Aristotle
as reported by Seneca : “No great genius with¬
out some mixture of insanity." But we have
to remember that the “ insanity " is not more
than a mixture, and it must be a finely tem¬
pered mixture.

This conclusion, suggested by our survey of

CONCLUSIONS.

231

British persons of pre-eminent intellectual apti¬
tude, is thus by no means either novel or modern.
It is that of most cautious and sagacious in¬
quirers. The same position was, rather vaguefy,
adopted by Moreau (de Tours) in his Psychologic
morbidc dans ses rapports , etc., published in 1859,
though, as his book was prolix and badly written,
his proposition has often been misunderstood.
He regarded genius as a “ neurosis,” but he looked
upon such “ nevrose ” as simply “ the synonym
of exaltation (I do not say trouble or perturba¬
tion) of the intellectual faculties. . . . The

word 'neurosis’ would indicate a particular dis¬
position of the faculties, a disposition still in
part physiological, but overflowing those physio¬
logical limits ” ; and he presents a genealogical
tree with genius, insanity, crime, etc., among its
branches ; the common root being “ the here¬
ditary idiosyncratic nervous state.” Professor
Grasset, again, more recently (La supdriorite
intellectuelle et la ndvrose , 1900), while not regard¬
ing genius as a neurosis, considers that it is
united to the neuroses by a common trunk, this
trunk being a temperament and not a disease.
The slight admixture of morbidity penetrating
an otherwise healthy constitution, such as the
present investigation suggests as of frequent
occurrence in genius, results in an organization

232

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

marked by what Moreau calls a “ neurosis ”
and Grasset a “ temperament.”

It has been necessary to state, as clearly as
may be possible, the conclusions suggested by
the present study as regards the pathological
relationships of genius, because, although those
conclusions are not essentially novel, the question
is one that is apt to call out extravagant anwers
in one direction or another. The most fruitful
part of our investigation seems, however, to lie
not in the aid it may give towards the exact defi¬
nition of genius, — for which our knowledge is not
sufficient, — but in the promising fields it seems to
open out for the analysis of genius along definite
and precise lines. The time has gone by for the
vague and general discussion of genius. We are
likely to learn much more about its causation
and nature by following out a number of detailed
lines of inquiry on a carefully objective basis.
Such an inquiry, as we have seen, is difficult on
account of the defective nature of the material
and the lack of adequate normal standards of
comparison. Yet even with these limitations it
has not been wholly unprofitable. It has enabled
us to trace a number of conditions which, even
if they cannot always be described as factors of
the genius constitution, clearly appear among the
influences highly favourable to its development.

CONCLUSIONS.

233

Such a condition seems to be the great reproduc¬
tive activity of the parents, the child destined to
attain intellectual eminence in many cases alone
surviving. The fact of being either the youngest
or the eldest child is a condition favourable for
subsequent intellectual eminence ; and I may add
that I could refer to numerous recent instances
of large families, in which the eldest and the
youngest, but no other members, have attained
intellectual distinction. We have further seen
that there is a tendency for children who develop
genius to be of feeble health, or otherwise dis¬
abled, during the period of physical development.
It is easy to see the significance of this influence,
which by its unfavourable effects on the develop¬
ment of the limbs, — an effect not exerted on the
head, which may thus remain relatively large, —
leaves an unusual surplus of energy to be used in
other directions ; at the same time the child,
who is thus deprived of the ordinary occupations
of childhood, is thrown back on to more solitary
and more intellectual pursuits. The clumsiness
and other muscular incoordinations which we
have found to be prevalent, — while there is good
reason to believe that they are of congenital
origin, — cooperate to the same end. Again, it is
easy to see how the shock of contact with a
strange and novel environment, which we have

234

A STUDY OF BRITISH GENIUS.

proved to be so frequent, acts as a most powerful
stimulant to the nascent intellectual aptitudes.
It is possible to take a number of other common
peculiarities in the course of the development of
genius and to show how they either serve to
inhibit the growth of genius along unfruitful
lines or to further it along fruitful lines.

Such an investigation as the present is far from
enabling us to state definitely all the determining
factors of genius, or even all the conditions re¬
quired for its development. It suggests that they
are really very numerous and that genius is the
happy result of a combination of many concomi¬
tant circumstances, though some of the prenatal
group of circumstances must remain largely out¬
side our ken. We are entitled to believe that
the factors of genius include the nature of the
various stocks meeting together in the individual
and the manner of their combination, the avoca¬
tion of the parents, the circumstances attending
conception, pregnancy and birth, the early en¬
vironment and all the manifold influences to
which the child is subjected from infancy to
youth. The precise weight and value of these
manifold circumstances in the production of
genius it must be left to later investigation to
determine.

APPENDICES.

237

APPENDIX A.

LIST OF EMINENT BRITISH PERSONS OF

ABILITY.

( The names of women are italicised. )

ABBOT, G. (1562-1633)
Abercromby, Sir R. (1734-1801)
Abington , F. (1737-1815)

Adam, R. (1728-1792)

Adams, J. C. (1819-1892)

Adamson, P. (1537-1592)

Addison, J. (1672-1719)

Adrian IV. ( - 1159)

Ainsworth, H. (1571-1622)

Airy, Sir G. (1801-1892)

Alcuin (735-804)

Alesius, A. (1500-1565)

Alexander of Hales ( - 1245)

Alexander, W., Earl of Stirling
(1567-1640)

Allen, W. (1532-1594)

Amherst, J., Baron (1717-1797)
Andrewes, L. (1555-1626)

Anson, G., Baron (1697-1762)
Arblay, F. cP (1752-1840)

Arkwright, Sir R. (1732-1792)

Arne, T. (1710-1778)

Arnold, M. (1822-1888)

Arnold, T. (1795-1842)

Arthur, Sir G. (1784-1854)

Ascham, R. (1515-1568)

Atterbury, F. (1662-1732)

Austen, J. (1775-1817)

Austin, J. (1790-1859)

BABBAGE, C. (1792-1871)

Bacon, A. (1558-1601)

Bacon, F., Lord Verulam (1561-1626)
Bacon, Sir N. (1509-1579)

Bacon, R. (1214 7-1294)

Bagehot, W. (1826-1877)

Baillie,J. (1762-1851)

Baily, F. (1774-1844)

Baker, Sir S. (1821-1893)

Balfe, M. W. (1808-1870)

Balfour, F. (1851-1882)

Bancroft, R. (1544-1610)

Banim, J. (1798-1842)

Banks, Sir J. (1743-1820)

Banks, T. (1735-1805)

Bannister, J. (1760-1836)
j Barbauld, A. (1743-1825)

Barbour, J. (1316 ?- 1 395 )

Barclay, A. (1475 7-1552)

Barclay, J. (1582-1621)

Barclay, R. (1648-1690)’

Barham, R. (1788-1845)

Barnes, W. (1801 -1886)

Barnfield, R. (1574-1627)

Barrow, I. (1630-1677)

Barrow, Sir J. (1764-1848)

Barry , A. (1734-1801)

Barry, Sir C. (1795-1860)

Barry, E. (1658-1713)

Barry, J. (1741-1806)

Baskerville, J. (1706-1775)
Bateman, W. (1298 ?- 1 355)

Bates, H. W. (1825-1892)

Baxter, R. (1615-1691)

238

APPENDIX.

Beardsley, A. (1872-1898)

Beaton, D. (1494-1546)

Beaumont, F. (1584-1616)

Becher , E ., Lady (1791-1872)
Beckford, W. (1759-1844)

Beddoes, T. (1803-1849)

Bede (673-735)

Bedell, W. (1571-1642)

Behn , ^4. (1640-1689)

Bell, A. (1753-1832)

Bell, Sir C. (1774-1842)

Bennett, Sir W. S. (1816-1875)
Benson, E. (1829-1896)

Bentham, G. (1800-1884)

Bentham, J. (1748-1832)

Bentley, R. (1662-1742)

Berkeley, G. (1685-1753)

Bessemer, Sir H. (1813-1898)
Bethell, R., Lord Westbury (1800-

1873)

Betterton, T. (1635-1710)

Bewick, T. (1753-1828)

Bingham, J. (1668-1723)

Birch, S. (1813-1885)

Bishop, Sir H. (1786-1855)

Black, J. (1728-1799)

Blackmore, R. (1825-1900)
Blackstone, Sir W. (1723-1780)
Blake, R. (1599-1657)

Blake, W. (1757-1827)

Blow, J. (1648-1708)

Boece, H. (1465 ?-i536)

Boniface, St. (680-755)

Bonington, R. P. (1801-1828)
Bonner, E. (1500 ?- 1 569)

Booth, B. (1681-1733)

Borrow, J. (1803-1881)

Boscawen, E. ( 1 7 1 1-1761)

Boswell, J. (1740-1795)

Bowen, C., Baron (1835-1894)
Bowring, Sir J. (1792-1872)

Boyce, W. (1710-1779)

Boyle, R., Earl of Cork (1566-1643)
Boyle, R. (1627-1691)

Bracegirdle , A. (1663-1748)

Bradford, W. (1590-1657)

Bradlaugh, C. (1833-1891)

Bradley, J. (1693-1762)

Bradshaw, H. (1831-1886)

Bradshaw, W. (1571-1618)
Bradwardine (1290 P-1349)

Broke, Sir P. (1776-1841)

Brooke, Sir J. (1803-1868)

Breton, N. (1545 ?-i626)

Brewster, Sir D. (1781-1868)

Bright, J. (1811-1889)

Bronte , C. (1816-1855)

Bronte , E. (1818-1848)

Brougham, Lord (1778-1868)

Brown, F. M. (1821-1893)

Browne, H. K. (1815-1882)

Browne, R. (1550 ?-i633 ?)

Browne, Sir T. (1605-1682)

Browne, W. (1591-1643 ?)

Browning , E. B. (1806- 1861)
Browning, R. (1812-1889)

Bruce, H., Baron Aberdare (1815-

1895)

Bruce, J. (1730-1794)

Bruce, M. (1746-1767)

Buchanan, G. (1506-1582)

Buckle, H. T. (1821-1862)

Bull, J. (1563 ?-i628)

Bunyan J. (1628-1688)

Burbage, R. (1567 ?- 1 61 9)

Burges, C. (1589-1665)

Burke, E. (1729-1787)

Burne-Jones, Sir E. (1833-1898)
Burnet, G. (1643-1715)

Burns, R. (1759-1796)

Burton, Sir R. (1821-1890)

Burton, R. (1577-1640)

Butler, J. (1692-1752)

Butler, S. (1612-1680)

Butterfield, W. (1814-1900)

Byng, G., Viscount Torrington (1663-

1733)

Byrd, W. (1538-1623)

Byron, G., Lord (1788-1824)

CADE, J. ( - 1450)

Cadogan, W., Earl (1675-1726)
Caedmon {fi. 670)

Cairns, H., Earl (1819-1885)

Caius, J. (1510-1573)

Calamy, E. (1671-1732)

Camden, W. (1551-1623)

Campbell, Sir C. (1792-1863)
Campbell, Sir G. (1824-1892)
Campbell, J., Baron (1779-1861)
Campbell, T. (1777-1844)

Campion, E. (1540-1581)

Campion, T. ( - 1619)

Candlish, R. (1806-1873)

Canning, C., Earl (1812-1862)
Canning, G. (1770-1827)

Canning, S., Viscount S. de Red-

cliffe (1786-1880)

EMINENT BRITISH PERSONS.

239

Cantelupe, St. T. de (1218 ?-i282)
Canton, J. (1718-1772)

Carey, W. (1761-1834)

Carleton, W. (1794-1869)

Carlile, R. (1790-1843)

Carlyle, T. (1795-1881)

Carpenter , M. (1807-1877)

Carpenter, W. B. (1813-1885)
Carrington, R. (1826-1875)

Carstares, W. (1649-1715)

Cartwright, T. (1 535"i6o3)

Case, T. (1598-1682)

Cattermole, G. (1800-1868)
Cavendish, H. (1731-1810)

Cavendish , M. , Duchess of Newcastle
(1624 ?-i674)

Cavendish, T. (1555 ?-i592)

Caxton, W. (1422 ?-i49i)

Cayley, A. (1821-1895)

Cecil, W.,Lord Burghley (1520-1598)
Centlivre , S. (1667 ?-i723)

Challoner, R. 1691-1781)

Chalmers, T. (1780-1847)

Chantry, Sir F. (1781-1842)
Chapman, G. (1559 ?-i634)
Chatterton, T. (1752-1770)

Chaucer, G. (1340 ?-i40o)

Cheke, Sir J. ( 1 5 14-1 557)

Cheselden, W. (1688-1752)

Chesney, F. (1789-1872)

Chichele, H. (1362-1443)

Chichester, A. Lord (1563-1625)
Childers, H. (1827-1896)
Chillingworth, W. (1602-1644)
Church, R. (1815-1890)

Churchill, C. (1731-1764)

Churchill, J., Duke of Marlborough
(1650-1722)

Cibber, C. (1671-1757)

Cibber , S. (1714-1766)

Clapperton, H. (1788-1827)

Clare, J. (1793-1864)

Clarke, S. (1675-1729)

Clifford, W. G. (1845-1879)

Clive , K. (1711-1785)

Clive, R., Lord (1725-1774)

Clough, A. (1819-1861)

Cobbett, W. (1762-1835)

Cobden, R. (1804-1865)

Cockburn, Sir A. (1802-1880)
Cockerell, C. (1788-1863)

Coke, Sir E. (11552-1634)

Colby, T. (1784-1852)

Colebrooke, H. T. (1765-1837)

Colenso, J. (1814-1883)

Coleridge, H. (1796-1849)

Coleridge, S. T. (1772-1834)

Colet, J. (1467-1519)

Collier, J. (1630-1726)

Collins, W. (1721-1759)

Collins, W. W. (1824-1889)

Colman, G., the elder (1732-1794)
Columba, St. (521-597)

Columban, St. (543-615)

Congreve, W. (1670-1729)

Conington, J. (1825-1869)

Constable, T. (1776-1837)

Cook, J. (1728-1779)

Cooke, G. F. (1756-1811)

Cooke, H. (1788-1868)

Cooper, A., First Lord Shaftesbury
(1621-1683)

Cooper, A., Third Lord Shaftesbury
(1671-1713)

Cooper, Sir A. (1768-1841)

Cooper, S., (1609-1672)

Copley, J. S. (1737-1815)

Copley, J. S., Lord Lyndhurst (1772
1863)

Cosin, J. (1594-1672)

Cotes, R. (1682-1716)

Cotman, J. (1782-1842)

Cotton, Sir A. T. (1803-1899)
Cotton, C. (1630-1687)

Cotton, Sir R. (1571-1631)

Coutances, W. de ( - 1207)

Coverdale, M. (1488-1568)

Cowley, A. (1618-1667)

Cowley , H. (1743-1809)

Cowper, W. (1731-1800)

Cox, D. (1783-1859)

Cozens, J. R. (1752-1799)

Crabbe, G. (1754-1832)

Cranmer, T. (1489-1556)

Crashaw, R. (1612-1649)

Creighton, M. (1843-1901)

Crichton, J. (1560-1585 ?)

Croker, J. W. (1780-1857)

Crome, J. (1768-1821)

Cromwell, O. (1599-1658)

Cromwell, T. (1485 ?-i54o)

Cross , M. A. (1819-1880)
Cruikshank, G. (1792-1878)
Cudworth, R. (1617-1688)

Cullen, W. (1710-1790)

Curran, J. P. (1750-1817)

Cuthbert, St. ( - 687)

240

APPENDIX.

DALRYMPLE, J., Viscount Stair
(1619-1695)

Dalton, J. (1766-1844)

Dampier, W. (1652-1715)

Danby, F. (1793-1861)

Daniel, S. (1562-1619)

Darwin, C. (1809-1882)

Darwin, E. (1731-1802)

D’Avenant, Sir W. (1606-1668)
Davies, Sir J. (1569-1626)

Davy, Sir H. (1778-1829)

Dawson, H. (1811-1878)

Day T. (1748-1789)

Deane, R. (1610-1653)

Dee, J. (1527-1608) "

Defoe, D. (1659-1731)

Dekker, T. (i57o?-i64i ?)

De Morgan, A. (1806-1871)
Dempster, T. (1579 ?-i625)

Denham Sir J. (1615-1669)

Denman, Lord (1779-1854)

De Quincey, T. (1785-1859)

D’Ewes, Sir S. (1602-1650)

Dibdin, C. (1745-1814)

Dickens, C. (1812-1870)

Digby, Sir K. (1603-1665)

Dobell, S. (1824-1874)

Dobson, W. (1610-1646)

Doddridge, P. (1702- 1751)

Dodgson, C. (1832-1898)

Dodwell, H. (1641-171 1 )

Dolben, J. (1625-1686)

Donne, J. (1573-1631)

Douglas, G. (1474 ?-i 522)

Dowland, J. (1563 ?-i626)

Doyle, R. (1824-1883)

Drake, Sir F. (1540 7-1596)

Drayton, M. (1563-1631)

Drummond, T. (1797-1840)
Drummond, W. (1585-1649)

Dryden, J. (1631-1700)

Dudley, J., Duke of Northumberland

(1502-1553)

Duff, A. (1806-1878)

Dugdale Sir W. (1605-1686)

Du Maurier, G. (1834-1896)

Dunbar, W. (1465 ?-i530 ?)

Duncan, A., Viscount (1731-1804)
Dundas, EL, Viscount Melville (1742-

1811)

Dunning, J., Baron Ashburton (1731-

1783)“

Duns, S. (1265 ?-I3o8 ?)

Dunstan, St. (924-988)

D’Urfey, T. (1653-1723)

Dyce, W. (1806-1864)

EASTLAKE, Sir C. (1793-1865)
Eastlake , Lady (1809-1893)
Edgeworth , M. (1767-1849)
Edmund, St. (1170 ?-i24o)
Edwardes, Sir H. (1819-1868)
Edwards , A. B. (1831-1892)

Eliot, Sir J. (1592-1632)

Elliston, R. W. (1774-1831)

Elyot, Sir T. (1490-1546)

Emlyn, T. (1663-1741)

Erskine, E. (1680-1754)

Etheridge, Sir G. (1634-1691 ?)
Etty, W. (1787-1849)

FABER, F. (1814-1863)

Falconer, H. (1808-1865)

Fanshawe, Sir R. (1608-1666)
Faraday, M. (1791-1867)

Farquhar, G. (1678-1707)

Faucit , H. (1817-1898)

Fawcett, H. (1833-1884)

Ferguson, J. (1710-1776)

Fergusson, R. (1750-1774)

Ferrar, N. (1592-1637)

Perrier, S. (1782-1854)

Fielding, EL (1707-1754)

Fitzgerald, E. (1809-1883)
Fitzgibbon, J., Earl of Clare (1749-
1802)

Flamsteed, J. (1646-1719)

Flaxman, J. (1755-1826)

Fletcher, A. (1655-1716)

Fletcher, J. (1579-1625)

Flinders, M. (1774-1814)

Plood, H. (1732-1791)

Flower, Sir W. (1831-1899)

Foote, S. (1720-1777)

Forbes, E. (1815-1854)

Forbes, D. (1809-186S)

Ford, J. (1586-1639 ?)

Forster, W. E. (1818- 1886)

Fortescue, Sir T. (1394-1476 ?)

Fox, C. J. (1749-1806)

Fox, G. (1624-1691)

Foxe, J. (1516-1587)

Foxe, R. (1448 P-1528)

Francis, Sir P. (1740-1818)
Frankland, Sir E. (1825-1899)
Franklin, Sir J. (1786-1847)

Franks, Sir A. (1826-1897)

Freeman, E. (1823-1892)

EMINENT BRITISH PERSONS.

241

Frere, Sir B. (1815-1884)

Frobisher, Sir M. (1535-1594)
Froude, J. A. (1818-1894)

Fry , E. (1780-1845)

Fuller, T. (1608-1661)

GAINSBOROUGH, T. (1727-1788)
Galt, J. (1779-1839)

Gardiner, S. (1483 ?- 1 555)

Garnett, H. (1555-1606)

Garrick, D. (1717-1779)

Gascoigne, G. (1523 ?- 1 579)

Gaskell, E. C. (1810-1865)

Gauntlett, H. (1805-1876)

Gay, J. (1685-1732)

Geoffrey of Monmouth (1100 ?- 1 1 54)
Gibbon, E. (1737-1794)

Gibbons, O. (1583-1625)

Gibson, J. (1790-1866)

Gifford, W. (1756-1826)

Gilbert, Sir H. (1539 ?- 1 583)
Gilbert, Sir J. (1817-1897)

Gilbert, W. (1540-1603)

Gillray, J. (1757-1815)

Giraldus Cambrensis (1146 P-1220 ?)
Girtin, T. (1775-1802)

Gladstone, W. E. (1809-1898)
Glisson, F. (1597-1677)

Godwin, M. W. (1759-1797)
Godwin, W. (1756-1836)

Goldsmith, O. (1728-1774)

Gordon, C. G. (1833-1885)

Gower, J. (1325 ?-I4o8)

Graham, Sir G. (1831-1899)

Graham, J., Viscount Dundee (1649?-
1689)

Grattan, J. (1746-1820)

Gray, T. (1716-1771)

Green, J. R. (1837-1883)

Greene, R. (1560 P-1592)

Grenville, G. (1712-1770)

Grenville, W. Baron (1759-1834)
Gresham, Sir T. (1519 ?- 1 579)

Grew, N. (1641-1712)

Grey, Sir G. (1812-1898)

Grocyn, W. (1446 ?- 1 5 19)
Grosseteste, R. (1175 ?-i253)

Grote, G. (1794-1871)

HALE, Sir M. (1609-1676)

Hales, J. (1584-1656)

Hales, S. (1677-1761)

Hall, J. (1574-1656)

Iiallam, Ii. (1777-1859)

Halley, E. (1656-1742)
Halliwell-Phillips, J. (1820-1889)
Hamilton, A. (1646 ?-i72o)
Hamilton, S 1 W. (1788-1856)
Hamilton, Sir W. R. (1805-1865)
Hamilton, T., Earl of Haddington
(1563-1637)

Hamley, Sir E. (1824-1893)
Hampden, J. (1594-1643)

Hardinge, H., Viscount (1785-1856)
Harrington. J. (1611-1677)

Hartley, D. (1705-1757)

Harvey, W. (1578-1657)

Hastings, W. (1732-1818)

Havelock, Sir H. (1795-1857)
Hawke, E., Lord (1705-1781)
Hawkins, Sir J. (1532-1595)

Hawkwood, Sir J. de ( - -1304)

Haydon, B. W. (1786-1846)

Hazlitt, W. (1778-1830)

E[emans , F. (1793-1835)

Henderson, A. (1583 ?-i646)
Herbert, A., Earl of Torrington
(1647-1716)

Herbert, of Cherbury, E., Lord
(1583-1648)

Herbert, G. (1593-1633)

Herrick, R. (1591-1674)

Herschel, Sir J. (1792-1871)

Heylin, P. (1600-1662)

Heywood, J. (1497 ?-i58o)

Hey wood, T. (1650)

Hickes, G. (1642-1715)

Hill, Sir R. (1795-1879)

Hinton, J. (1822-1875)

Hoadley, B. (1676-1761)

Hobbes, T. (1588-1679)

Hodgson, B. (1800-1894)

Hogarth, W. (1697-1764)

H°gg> J- (1770-1835)

Plolcroft, T. (1745-1809)

Holl, F. (1845-1888)

Hood, S., Viscount (1724-1816)
Hood, T. (1799-1845)

Hook, T. (1788-1841)

Hook, W. (1798-1875)

Hooke, R. (1635-1703)

Hooker, R. (1554-1600)

Horner, F. (1778-1817)

Horrocks, J. (1617 7-1641)

Hort, F. (1828-1892)

Howard, J. (1726-1790)

Howell, J. (1594-1666)

Hubert, Walter ( - 1205)

242

APPENDIX.

Hughes, T. (1822-1896)

Hume, D. (1711-1776)

Hunt, L. (1784-1859)

Hunter, J. (1728-1893)

Hunter, Sir W. (1840-1900)
Huskisson, W. (1770-1830/
Hutcheson, F. (1694-1746)

Hutton, J. (1726-1797)

Hutton, R. H. (1826-189 7)

Huxley, T. H. (1825-1895)

Hyde, E., Earl of Clarendon (1609-
1674)

INCHBALD, E. (1753-1821)
Ireton, H. (1611-1651)

Irving, E. (1792-1834)

JAMESON, i A. (1794-1860)

Jeffrey, F., Lord (1773-1850)

Jenner, E. (1749-1823)

Jerrold, D. (1803-1857)

Jervis, J., Earl of St. Vincent (1735-
1823)

Jevons, W. S. (1835-1882)

Jewel, J. (1522-1571)

John of Salisbury (- - 1 180)

Johnson, S. (1709-1784)

Johnston, A., Lord Warriston (1610 ?-
1663)

Jones, I. (1573-1652)

Jones, Sir J. T. (1783-1843)

Jones, Sir W. (1746-1794)

Jones, W. B. 1822-1897)

Jonson, B. (1573-1637)

Jordan, D. (1762-1816)

Joule, J. P. (1818-1889)

Jowett, B. (1817-1893)

Juxon,BW. (1582-1663)

KEAN, E. (1787-1833)

Keats, J. (1795-1821)

Keble, J. (1792-1866)

Keeley , M. A. (1805-1895)

Keene, C. (1823-1891)

Kelly , F. (1790-1882)

Kemble , F. A. (1809-1893)

Kemble, J. M. (1807-1857)

Kemble, J. P. (1757-1823)

Kemp, J. (1380-1447)

Ken, T. (1637-1711)

Kennett, W. (1660-1728)

Kenyon, L., Lord (1732-1802)
Killigrew, T. (1612-1683)

King, T. (1730-1805)

King, W. (1650-1729)

Kingsley, C. (1819-1875)

Kingsley , M. (1862-1900)

Kirkcaldy, Sir W. (1573)

Knight, G. (1713-1772)

Knollys, Sir R. (1407)

Knowles, J. S. (1784-1862)

Knox, J. (1505-1572)

LAKE, G., Viscount (1744-1808)
Lamb, C. (1775-1834)

Lambert, J. (1619-1683)

Lancaster, J. (1778-1838)

Lander, R. (1804-1834)

Landon , L. E. (1802-1838)

Landor, W. S. (1775-1864)

Landseer, Sir E. (1802-1873)

Lane, E. (1801-1876)

Langland, W. (1330 P-1400 ?)
Langton, S. (1228)

Langton, W. (1321)

Lardner, N. (1684-1768)

Latimer, H. (1485 ?- 1 555)

Laud, W. (1573-1645)

Law, E., Baron Ellenborough (1750-
1818)

Law, E., Earl of Ellenborough
(1790-1871)

Law, J. (1671-1729)

Law, W. (1686-1761)

Lawes, H. (1596-1662)

Lawes, Sir J. B. (1814-1900)
Lawrence, Sir H. (1806-1857)
Lawrence, J., Lord (1811-1879)
Lawrence, S. (1698-1775)

Lawrence, Sir T. (1769-1830)
Layard, Sir A. H. (1817-1894)

Leake, Sir T. (1656-1720)

Lee, N. (1653 ?-i692)

Leech, J. (1817-1864)

Lefroy, Sir J. (1817-1890)

Leighton, F., Baron (1830-1896)
Leighton, R. (1611-1684)

Leland, J. (1506 7-1552)

Leslie, A., Earl of Leven(i582-i66i)
Leslie, C. (1650-1722)

Leslie, J. (1527-1596)

L’ Estrange, Sir R. (1616-1704)

Lever, C. J. (1806-1872)

Lewes, G. H. (1817-1878)

Lewis, Sir G. C. (1806-1863)

Lewis, J. F. (1805-1876)

Lewis, W. T. (1748 ?-i8ii)

Liddon, H. P. (1829-1890)

EMINENT BRITISH PERSONS.

243

Lightfoot, J. B. (1828-1889)
Lilburne, J. (1614 ?-i657)

Lillo, G. (1693-1739)

Linacre, T. (1460 7-1524)

Lindsay, Sir D. (1490-1555)

Lingard, J. (1771-1851)

Linnell, J. (1792-1882)

Linton , E. L. (1822-1898)

Linton, W. J. (1812-1898)

Lister, J. (1786-1869)

Liston, J. (1776-1846)

Littleton, Sir T. (1402-1481)
Livingstone, D. (1813-1873)

Lloyd, J. (1627-1717)

Locke, J. (1632-1704)

Lockhart, J. (1794-1854)

Lodge, T. (1558-1625)

Loftus, A. (1533-1605)

Lovelace, R. (1618-1658)

Lover, S. (1797-1868)

Lowe, R., Viscount Sherbrooke (1811-
1892)

Lowth, R. (1710-1787)

Lucas, C. (1713-1771)

Ludlow, E. (1617-1692)

Lydgate, J. (1370 ?-i45i)

Lyell, Sir C. (1797-1875)

Lyly> J- (1554 ?-i6o6) '

Lytton, E. B., Earl of (1831-1891)
Lytton, E. B., Lord (1803-1873)

MACAULAY, T., Lord (1800-1859)
Macdonald, Sir J. A. (1815-1891)
Macfarren, Sir G. (1813-1887)
Mackay, H. (1640 ?-i692)
Mackintosh, Sir J. (1765-1832)
Mackenzie, H. (1745-1831)

Macklin, C. (1697 ?-i 797)

Maclaurin C. (1698-1746)

Maclise, D. (1806-1870)

Macnaghten, Sir W. (1793-1841)
Macready, W. C. (1793-1873)
Maginn, W. (1793-1842)

Maine, Sir H. S. (1822-1888)
Malcolm, Sir J. (1769-1833)

Malone, E. (1741-1812)

Malthus, T. (1766-1834)

Manning, H. E. (1807-1892)

Map, W. (d. 1200)

Marlowe, C. (1564-1593)

Marryat, F. (1792-1848)

Marsh, H. (1757-1839)

Marshall, S. (1594 ?-i655)

Marston, J. (1575-1634)

Marten, H. (1602-1680)

Martineau , H. (1802-1876)
Martineau, J. (1805-1900)

Marvell, A. (1621-1678)

Massinger, P. (1583-1640)

Mathews, C. (1776-1835)

Mathews, C. J. (1803-1878)

Maurice, F. D. (1805-1872)

Maxwell, J. C. (1831-1879)

Mayow, T. (1643-1679)

Mead, R. (1673-1754)

Melville, A. (1545-1622)

Merivale, C. (1808-1893)

Middleton, C. (1683-1750)
Middleton, T. (1570 ?-i627)

Mill, J. (1773-1836)

Mill, J. S. (1806 1873)

Millais, Sir J. (1829-1896)

Miller, H. (1802-1856)

Milman, H. (1791-1868)

Milner, I. (1750-1820)

Milner, J. (1752-1826)

Milton, J. (1608-1674)

Mitchell, Sir T. (1792-1855)

Mitford , M. (1787-1855)

Moffat, R. (1795-1883)

Monck, G., Duke of Albemarle

(1608-1670)

Monson, SirW. (1569-1643)
Montagu, C., Earl of Halifax (1661-

1715)

Montagu, E. (1720-1800)

Montagu, R. (1577-1641)

Moore, Sir J. (1761-1809)

Moore, T. (1779-1852)

More, H. (1745-1833)

More, Sir T. (1478-1535)

Morgan, Sir G. O. (1826-1897)
Morgan, Sir H. (1635 ?-i688)
Morgan , Lady S. (1783 7-1859)
Morland, G. (1763-1804)

Morland, Sir S. (1625-1695)

Morley, G. (1597-1684)

Morris, W. (1834-1896)

Morton, T. (1564-1659)

Mulready, W. (1786-1863)

Mun, T. (1571-1641)

Munday, A. (1553-1633)

Mundella, A. J. (1825-1897)
Munden, J. (1758-1832)

Munro, Sir T. (1761-1827)
Murchison, Sir R. (1792-1871)
Murdock, W. (1754-1839)

l6#

244

APPENDIX.

Murray, J. (1778-1843)

Myers, F. W. (1843-1901)

NAIRNE, C., Baroness (1766-1845)
Napier, Sir C. (1786-1860)

Napier, Sir C. J. (1782-1853)

Napier, J. (1550-1617)

Napier, Sir J. (1804-1882)

Napier, R. C., Lord (1810-1890)
Napier, Sir W. J. P. (1785-1860)
Nash, T. (1567-1601)

Nasmyth, J. (1808-1890)

Nasmyth, P. (1787-1831)

Naylor, J. (1617 ?-i66o)

Neale, E. V. (1810-1892)

Neale, J. M. (1818-1866)

Needham, M. (1620-167 )

Neill, J. G. S. (1810-1857)

Neilson, J. (1792-1865)

Neilson, L. A. (1848-1880)

Nelson, H., Lord (1758-1805)
Newcomen, T. (1663-1729)

Newman, F. W. (1805-1897)
Newman, J. H. (1801-1890)

Newton, Sir I. (1642-1727)
Nicholson, J. (1821-1857)

Northcote, J. (1746-1831)

Norton, T. (1532-1584)

Nott, Sir W. (1782-1845)

Nowell, A. (1507 ?-i6o2)

Noye, W. (1577-1634)

OCHTERLONY, Sir D. (1758-
1825)

Ockham, W. ( - 1349 ?)

Ockley, S. (1678-1720)

O’Connell, D. (1775-1847)
Oglethorpe, J. E. (1696-1785)

Oldcastle, Sir J. ( - 1417)

Oldfield , A . (1683-1730)

Oldys, W. (1696-1761)

O’Leary, A. (1729-1802)

Oliphant, L. (1829-1888)

Oliphant , M. (1828-1897)

O’Neill, D. (1612-1664)

Opie, A. (1769-1853)

Opie, J. (1761-1807)

Ordericus Vitalis (1075-1143 ?)
Otway, T. (1652-1685)

Oughtred, W. (1575-1660)

Outram, Sir J. (1803-1863)

Owen, J. (1616-1683)

Owen, Sir R. (1804-1892)

Owen, R. (1771-1858)

PAGET, Sir J. (1814-1899)

Paget, W. Baron (1505-1563)

Paine, T. (1737-1809)

Paley, W. (1743-1805)

Palmer, E. H. (1840-1882)

Palmer, J. (1742 ?-i 798)

Palmer, R., Earl Selbourne (1812-

1895)

Palmer, S. (1805-1881)

Paris, M. ( - 1259 ?)

Park, M. (1771-1806)

Parker, M. (1504-1575)

Parker, T., Earl Macclesfield (1667-
1732)

Parkes, E. A. (1819-1876)

Parkes, Sir H. S. (1828-1885)
Parkes, Sir H. (1815-1896)

Parnell, C. S. (1846-1891)

Parr, S. (1747-1825)

Parsons, R. (1546-1610)

Parsons, W. (1736-1795)

Pater, W. H. (1839-1894)

Paterson, W. (1658-1719)

Patmore, C. (1823-1896)

Patrick, St. (373-463)

Pattison, M. (1813-1884)

Payne, P. (1380 P-1455)

Pearson, J. (1613-1686)

Pearson, J. L. (1817-1897)

Pecock, R. (1395 7-1460 7)

Peel, Sir R. (1788-1850)

Peele, G. (1558 P-1597?)

Peirce, J. (1674 7-1726)

Pellew, E., Viscount Exmouth (1757-

1833).

Penn, Sir W. (1621-1670)

Penn, W. (1644-1718)

Penry (1559-1593)

Pepys, S. (1633-1703)

Perkins, W. (1558-1602)

Perry, J. (1756-1821)

Peters, H. (1598-1660)

Petty, Sir W. (1623-1687)

Phelps, S. (1804-1878)

Phillip, J. (1817-1867)

Picton, Sir T. (1758-1815)

Pitman, Sir I. (1813-1897)

Pitt, W. , Earl of Chatham (1708-
1778)

Pitt, W. (1759-1806)

Pococke, E. (1604-1691)

Pollock, Sir G. (1786-1872)

Pope, A. (1688-1744)

Popham, Sir H. R. (1762-1820)

EMINENT BRITISH PERSONS.

245

Porson, R. (1759-1808)

Pott, P. (1714-1788)

Powell, V. (1617-1670)

Pownall, T. (1722-1802)

Pratt, C., Earl Camden (1714- 1794)
Preston, J. (1587-1628)

Prestwich, Sir J. (1812-1896)

Price, R. (1723-1791)

Priestley, T. (1733-1804)

Prior, M. (1664-1721)

Prynne, W. (1600-1669)

Pugin, A. W. (1812-1852)

Pulteney, W., Earl of Bath (1684-
1764)

Purcell, H. (1658 ?- 1 695)

Pusey, E. B. (1800-1882)

Pym, J. (1584-1643)

QUARLES, F. (1592-1644)

Quin, J. (1693-1766)

RADCLIFFE, A. (1764-1823)
Raeburn, Sir H. (1756-1823)

Raffles, Sir T. (1781-1826)

Raleigh, Sir W. (1552 ?- 1 61 8)
Randolph, T. (1605-1635)

Ray, J. (1627-1705)

Reade, S. (1814-1884)

Reid, T. (1710-1796)

Reid, Sir W. (1781-1858)

Reynolds, Sir J. (1723-1792)
Richardson, S. (1689-1761)

Ridley, N. (1500 P-1555)

Ritson, J. (1752-1803)

Robertson, W. (1721 -1793)

Robinson, H., Baron Rosmead
(1824-1897)

Rodney, G., Baron (1719-1792)

Roe, Sir T. (1581 P-iGpj.)

Rogers, S. (1763-1855)

Romney, G. (1734-1802)

Roscoe, W. (1753-1831)

Rose, G. (1744-1818)

Ross, Sir H. D. (1779-1868)

Ross, R. (1766-1814)

Rossetti , C. (1830-1894)

Rossetti, D. G. (1828-1882)

Rowe, N. (1674-1718)

Rowlandson, T. (1756-1827)

Ruskin, J. (1819-1900)

Russell, C., Baron (1832-1900)

SABINE, Sir E. (1788-1883)

Sacheverell, W. (1638-1691)

Sadler, M. T. (1780-1835)

St. John, O. (1598 ?- 1673)

St. Leger, Sir A. (1496 ?-i 559)

Sale, Sir R. (1782-1845)

Salesbury, W. (1520 ?-i6oo?)
Sancroft, W. (1617-1693)

Sandby, P. (1725-1809)

Savage, R. ( - 1743)

Savile, Sir H. (1549-1622)

Scarlett, J., Baron Abinger (1769-
1844)

Scott, D. (1806-1849)

Scott, Sir G. G. (1811-1878)

Scott, J., Earl of Eldon (1751-1838)
Scott, Sir W. (1771-1832)

Scott, W., Lord Stowell (1745-1836)
Scotus Erigena (d. 850)

Sedgwick, A. (1785-1873)

Seeley, Sir T. (1834-1895)

Selden, J. (1584-1654)

Shakespeare, W. (1564-1616)

Sharp, J. (1645-1714)

Sheil, R. L. (1791-1851)

Sheldon, G. (1598-1677)

Shelley, P. B. (1792-1822)

Sheridan, R. B. (1751-1816)

Shirley, J. (1596-1666)

Siddons , S. (1755-1831)

Sidgwick, H. (1838-1899)

Sidney, Sir P. (1554-1586)

Simpson, Sir J. Y. (1811-1870)
Sinclair, Sir J. (1754-1835)

Skelton, J. (146= P-1529)

Smart, C. (1722-1771)

Smith, A. (1753-1790)

Smith, Sir H. G. (1787-1860)

Smith, H. J. S. (1826-1883)

Smith, R. A. (1817-1884)

Smith, Sydney, (1771-1845)

Smith, Sir T. (1513-1577)

Smith, W. (1769-1839)

Smith, W. R. (1846-1894)

Smith, Sir W. S. (1764-1840)
Smollett, T. (1721-1771)

Somers, J., Lord (1651-1716)
Somerville , M. (1780-1872)

South, R. (1634-1716)

Southey, R. (1774-1843)

Southwell, R. (1561 ?- 1 595)

Speke, J. (1827-1864)

Spelman, Sir H. (1564 ?- 1641 )
Spenser, E. (1552 ?-i599)

Sprat, T. (1635-1713)

246

APPENDIX.

Stanhope, W., Earl of Harrington
(1690 ?-i756)

Stanley, A. P. (1815-1881)

Steele, Sir R. (1672-1729)

Steevens, G. (1736-1800)

Stephen, Sir J. F. (1829-1894)
Stephenson, G. (1781-1848)

Sterne, L. (1713-1768)

Stevens, A. (1818-1875)

Stevenson, R. L. (1850-1894)
Stewart, D. (1753-1828)

Stothard, T. (1755-1834)

Stow, J. (1525-1605)

Street, G. E. (1824-1881)

Stubbs, G. (1724-1806)

Sturgeon, W. (1783-1850)

Suckling, Sir J. (1609-1642)
Sullivan, Sir A. (1842-1900)

Swift, J. (1667-1745)

Sydenham, T. (1624-1689)

Symonds, J. A. (1840-1893)

TAIT, A. C. (1811-1882)

Tallis, T. (1510 7-1585)

Tarleton, Sir B. (1754-1833)

Taylor, Sir H. (1800-1886)

Taylor, J. (1613-1667)

Taylor, W. (1765-1836)

Telford, T. (1757-1834)

Temple, Sir W. (1628-1699)
Tennyson, A., Baron (1809-1892)
Thackeray, W. M. (1811-1863)
Thirlwall, C. (1797-1875)

Thomas, | W. ( - 1554)

Thompson, W. (1785 7-1833)
Thomson, J. (1700-1748)

Thurloe, J. (1616-1668)

Thurlow, E., Baron (1731-1806)
Tillotson, J. (1630-1694)

Toland, J. (1670-1722)

Tone, T. W. (1763-1798)

Tooke, J. H. (1736-1812)
Trelawney, E. J. (1792-1881)
Trevitheck, R. (1771-1833)
Trollope, A. (1815-1882)

Trollope, Sir H. (1756-1839)
Tunstall, C. (1474-1559)

Turner, J. M. W. (1775-1851)

Tye, C. (1497 7-I572) '

Tyndale, W. (14907-1536)

Tyndall, J. (1820-1893)

UDALL, N. (1505-1556)

Urquhart, Sir T. (1611-1660)

Ussher, J. (1581-1656)

VANBRUGH, Sir J. (1663-1726)
Vane, Sir H., the younger (1613-
1662)

Varley, J. (1778-1842)

Vaughan, H. (1622-1695)

Vere, Sir F. (1560-1609)

Vere, Sir H. (1565-1635)

Vernon, E. (1684-1757)

WAKLEY, T. (1795-1862)

Walker, F. (1840-1875)

Wallace, Sir W. (1272 7-1305)
Waller, E. (1606-1687)

Waller, Sir W. (1597 7- 1668)

Wallis, J. (1616-1703)

Walpole, PL, Earl of Orford (1717-
1797)

Walpole, R., Earl of Orford (1676-
1745)

Walsh, P. (1618 7-i688)

Walsingham, Sir F. (1530 7-1590)
Walter, J. (1739-1812)

Walton, I. (1593-1683)

Warburton, W. (1698-1779)

Ward, M. (1585-1645)

Ward, S. (1617-1689)

Ward, W. G. (1812-1882)

Warham, W. (1450 7-1532)

Warton, T. (1728-1790)

Watson, R. (1737-1816)

Watson, T. (1557 7-1592)

Watt, J. (1736-1819)

Waynflete, W. of (1395 7-1486)
Webster, B. (1797-1882)

Wedgwood, J. (1730-1795)
Wentworth, W. C. (1793-1872)
Wesley, C. (1707-1788)

Wesley, J. (1703-1791)

Westmacott, Sir R. (1775-1856)
Whately, R. (1787-1863)
Wheatstone, Sir C. (1802-1875)
Whewell, W. (1794-1866)

Whiston, W. (1667-1752)

Whitbread, S. (1758-1815)

White, G. (1720-1793)

White, J. B. (1775-1841)

Whitefield, J. (1714-1770)
Whitehead, G. (16367-1723)
Whitelocke, B. (1605-1675)

Whitgift, J. (15307-1604)

Whittington, R. ( - 1423)

Whitworth, Sir J. (1803-1887)

EMINENT BRITISH PERSONS.

247

Wilberforce, S. (1805-1873)
Wilberforce, W. (1759-1833)

Wilde, O. (1856-1900)

Wilfrid, St. (634-709)

Wilkes, J. (1727-1797)

Wilkie, Sir D. (1785-1841)

Wilkins, J. (1614-1672)

Wilks, R. (1665 P-1732)

Willet, A. (1562-1621)

William of Malmesbury ( - 1 143 ?)

William of Newburgh (1136-1198?)
Williams, Sir C. H. (1708-1759)
Williams, D. (1643 P-17 16)
Williams, Sir R. (1540 P-1595)
Williams, R. (1604 ?- 1 683)
Williams, Sir W. (1634-1700)
Williamson, Sir J. (1633-1701)
Williamson, W. C. (1816-1895)
Willoughby, Sir N. T. (1777-1849)
Wilson, J. (1785-1854)

Wilson, R. (1714-1782)

Wilson, Sir R. (1777-1849)

Wilson, T. (1663-1755)

Windham, W. (1750-1810)
Winthrop, J. (1588-1649)

Winwood, Sir R. (1563 ?- 1 61 7)
Wiseman, N. (1802-1865)

Wishart, G. (1513 P-1546)

Wither, G. (1588-1667)

Woffington , M. (1714 ?-I76o)
Wolcot, J. (1738-1819)

Wolfe J. (1727-1759)

Wollaston, W. H. (1766-1828)
Wolsey, T. (1471 ?-i53o)
Woodward, H. (1714-1777)

Woolner, T. (1825-1892)
Wordsworth, Charles (1806-1892)
Wordsworth, Christopher (1807-
1885)

Wordsworth, W. (1770-1850)
Wotton, Sir H. (1568-1639)

Wotton, N. (1497 ?- 1 567)

Wren, Sir C. (1632-1723)

Wright, J. (1734-1797)

Wright, T. (1810-1877)

Wulfstan, St. (1012 P-1095)

Wyatt, Sir T. (1503 P-1542)
Wycherley, W. (i640?-i7i6)
Wycliffe, J. (1324 P-1384)

Wykeham, W. of (1324-1404)

Wyse, Sir T. (1791-1862)

YATES, M. A. (1728-1787)

Yorke, P., Earl of Hardwick e (1690-
1764)

Young, A. (1741-1820)

Young, E. (1683-1765)

Young, T. (1773-1829)

At various points it has been necessary to
classify our eminent persons into groups, accord¬
ing to the character of their intellectual acti¬
vities. It may be convenient here to present
these groupings. It should be noted that a few
individuals (distinguished by an asterisk) appear
in more than one list, and that some miscellaneous
persons have been omitted altogether. In a large
number of cases the question of classification is
difficult and remains doubtful, although a con¬
siderable amount of care has been exercised in
such cases. Difference of opinion must also

248

APPENDIX.

necessarily exist on the question of duplication
and the extent to which it should be carried.
The eminent women have been grouped separately.

Actors . — Bannister, Betterton, Booth, Burbage, Cibber, Cooke, Elliston,
Foote, Garrick, Kean, Kemble, King, Lewis, Liston, Macklin, Macready,
C. Mathews, C. J. Mathews, Munden, Palmer, Parsons, Phelps, Quin,
Webster, Wilks, Woodward.

Artists. — Adam, Banks, C. Barry, J. Barry, Beardsley, Bewick, Blake, *
Bonington, Brown, Browne, Burne-Jones, Butterfield, Cattermole, Chantrey,
Cockerell, Constable, Cooper, Copley, Cotman, Cox, Cozens, Crome, Cruik-
shank, Danby, Dawson, Dobson, Doyle, Du Maurier, Dyce, Eastlake, Etty,
Flaxman, Gainsborough, Gibson, Gilbert, Gillray, Girtin, Haydon, Hogarth,
Holl, Inigo Jones, Keene, Landseer, Lawrence, Leech, Leighton, Lewis,
Linnell, Linton, Maclise, Millais, Morland, Morris,* Mulready, Nasmyth,
Northcote, Opie, Palmer, Pearson, Phillip, Pugin, Raeburn, Reynolds,
Romney, Rossetti,* Rowlandson, Sandby, D. Scott, G. Scott, Stevens, Stot-
hard, Street, Stubbs, Turner, Vanbrugh,* Varley, Walker, Westmacott,
Wilkie, Wilson, Woolner, Wren, Wright.

Divines. — Abbot, Adrian IV., Ainsworth, Alesius, Allen, Andre wes,*
Atterbury, Bancroft, Barclay, Barrow,* Baxter, Bedell, Benson, St. Boniface,
Bonner, Bradshaw, Browne, Burges, Burnet,* Butler,* Campion, Candlish,
St. Thomas de Cantelupe, Carey, Cartwright, Challoner, Chalmers, Chichele,
Chillingworth, Church, Clarke, Colenso, St. Columba, St. Columban, Cooke,
Cosin, Coverdale, Cranmer, Cudworth, St. Cuthbert, Dolben, Doddridge,
Donne,* Duff, St. Dunstan, St. Edmund, Emlyn, Erskine, Faber, Ferrar,
Fox, Foxe,* Fuller, Garnett, Henderson,* Heylin, Hoadley, Hook, Hooker,
Irving, Jewel, Jones, Juxon, Iveble,* Ken, King, Knox,* Langton,* Lardner,
Latimer, Laud, Law, Leighton, Leslie, Liddon, Lightfoot, Lloyd, Loftus,
Manning, Marsh, Marshall, Martineau, Maurice, Melville, Middleton,
Milner, Moffat, Montague, Morley, Naylor, Neale, Newman, Nowell, Owen,
Paley,* Parker, Parsons, St. Patrick, Payne, Pearson,* Pecock, Peirce, Penry,
Perkins, Peters, Powell, Preston, Pusey, Ridley, Sancroft, Sharp, Sheldon,
South, Stanley,* Tait, Taylor, Tillotson, Tyndale,* Walsh, Warham, C.
Wesley, J. Wesley, Blanco White, Whitefield, Whitehead, Whitgift, Wilber-
force, St. Wilfrid, Willett, D. Williams, R. Williams, Wilson, Wiseman,
Wishart, Wordsworth, St. Wulfstan, Wycliffe.*

Doctors. — Cains,* Cheselden, Cooper, Cullen, Linacre,* Mead, Paget, Pott,
Simpson, Sydenham. (Others are included among Men of Science.)

Lawyers. — Abinger, Ashburton, Austin, Blackstone, Bowen, Cairns,
Camden, Campbell, Clare, Cockburn, Coke, Curran, Denman, Eldon, Ellen-
borough, Fortescue, Haddington, Hale, Hardwicke, Kenyon, Littleton,
Lyndhurst, Macclesfield, Maine, More,* J. Napier, Noye, Russell, St. John,
Selbourne, Selden, Somers, Stair, Stephen, Stowell, Thurlow, Westbury,
Williams.

Men of letters. — Addison, Alcuin, Ascham, Bagehot, Banim, Barclay,
Beckford, Bede, Blackmore, Borrow, Boswell, Browne, JBuchanan,* Buckle,

EMINENT BRITISH PERSONS.

249

Bunyan, Burton, Calamy, Camden, Carleton, Carlile, Cary le, Cibber,* Cobbett,*
Collier, Wilkie Collins, Colman, Congreve, Cotton, Cowley, Croker,
D’Avenant, Day, Defoe, Dekker, Dempster, De Quincey, D’Ewes, Dickens,
Digby, Dodgson,* Dugdale, Elyot, Etheridge, Fanshawe, Farquhar, Fielding,
Foxe, Francis, Freeman, Froude, Galt, Geoffrey of Monmouth, Gibbon, Gif¬
ford, Giraldus, Goldsmith, Green, Grote, Hall, Hallam, Halliwell-Phillips,
Hamilton, Harrington, Hazlitt, Herbert, Holcroft, Hood, Hook, Howell,
Hughes, Hume,* Hunt, Hunter, Hutton, Jeffrey, Jerrold, Johnson, Jonson,
Kemble, Ivennett, Killigrew, Kingsley, Knowles, Lamb, Landor, Lee, Leland,
L’ Estrange, Lever, Lewes, Lillo, Lingard, Lockhart, Lodge, Lover, Lyly,
Lytton, Macaulay, Mackenzie, Maginn, Malone, Map, Marryatt, Marston,
Miller,* Merivale, Milman, More,* Myers, W. J. P. Napier, Nash, Needham,
Newman, Oliphant, Oldys, Ordericus Vitalis, Paine, Paris, Pater, Pepys, Perry,
Prynne, Raleigh,* Reade, Richardson, Ritson, Robertson, Roscoe, Ruskin,
Scott, Seeley, Sheil, Sheridan,* Smollett, Southey, Sprat, Sidney Smith,
Stanley,* Steele, Sterne, Steevens, Stevenson, Stow, Swift, Symonds, H.
Taylor, W. Taylor, Temple,* Thackeray, Thirlwall, Trelawney, Trollope,
Tyndale, Udall, Urquhart, Vanbrugh,* Wakley,* H. Walpole, Walton,
Warburton, Warton, Whately, Wilde, William of Malmesbury, William of
Newburgh, Williams, Wilson, Wolcot, Wright, AVycherley.

Men of Science. — Adams, Airy, Arkwright, Armstrong, Babbage, R. Bacon,*
Baily, Balfour, Banks, Barrow,* Baskerville, Bates, Bell, Bentham, Bessemer,
Birch, Black, Boyle, Bradley, Brewster, Canton, Carpenter, Carrington,
Cavendish, Cayley, Caxton, Clifford, Colby, 'Cotes, Cotton, Dalton, C. Darwin,
E. Darwin, Davy, Dee, De Morgan, Dodgson,* Drummond, Falconer, Fara¬
day, Ferguson, Flamsteed, Flinders,* Flower, E. Forbes, J. D. Forbes,
Frankland, Franks, Gilbert, Glisson, Grew, Hales, Halley, Hamilton,
Harvey, Herschel, Hodgson, Hooke, Horrocks, Hunter, Hutton, Huxley,
Jenner, Jevons, Joule, Knight, Lawes, Lefroy, Lister, Lyell, Maclaurin,
Malthus, Mayow, Maxwell, Miller,* Milner, Morland, Mun, Murchison,
Murdoch, Napier, Nasmyth, Neilson, Newcomen, Newton, Oughtred, Owen,
Parkes, Petty, Priestley, Ray, Sabine,* Sadler, Sedgwick, Sidgwick, Sinclair,
A. Smith, H. J. Smith, R. A. Smith, W. Smith, Stephenson, Sturgeon,
Telford, Thompson, 'Trevitheck, Tyndall, Wallis, Ward, Watson, Watt,
Wedgwood, Wheatstone, Whewell, White, Whitworth, Wilkins, Williamson,
Wollaston, A. Young, T. Young.

Musical Composers. — Arne, Balfe, Bennett, Blow, Boyce, Byrd, Dowland,
Gauntlett, Gibbons, Lawes, Macfarren, Purcell, Sullivan, Tallis, Tye.

Philosophers. — Alexander of Hales, F. Bacon, Roger Bacon,* Bentham,
Berkeley, Bradwardine, Butler,* Duns, Erigena, Godwin, Hamilton, Hartley,
Hinton, Plobbes, Hume,* Hutcheson, Locke, Mackintosh, J. Mill, J. S.
Mill, Ockham, Paley,* Price, Reid, Shaftesbury, Stewart, Toland, Ward,
Wycliffe.*

Poets. — Arnold, Barbour. Barclay, Barham, Barnes, Barnfield, Beaumont,.
Beddoes, Blake,* Breton, Browne, Browning, Bruce, Bums, Butler, Byron,
Caedmon, Campbell, Campion, Chapman, Chatterton, Chaucer, Churchill,
Clare, Clough, H. Coleridge, S. T. Coleridge, Collins, Cotton, Cowper, Crabbe,
Crashaw, Daniel, Davies, Denham, Dibdin, Dobell, Donne,* Douglas,
Drayton, Drummond, Dryden, Dunbar, D’Urfey, Fletcher, Ford, Fergusson,
Fitzgerald, Gascoigne, Gay, Gower, Gray, Greene, Herbert, Herrick, J.

250

APPENDIX.

Hey wood, T. Hey wood, Hogg, Hood, Keats, Keble,* Langland, Lindsay,
Lovelace, Lydgate, Marlowe, Marvell, Massinger, Middleton, Milton, Moore,
Morris, * Munday, Norton, Otway, Patmore, Peele, Pope, Prior, Quarles,
Randolph, Rogers, Rossetti,* Rowe, Savage, Shakespeare, Shelley, Shirley,
Sidney,* Skelton, Smart, Southwell, Spenser, Suckling, Tennyson, Thomson,
Vaughan, Waller, Watson, Wither, Wordsworth, Wotton, Wyatt, Young.

Politicians , etc. — Arthur, A. Bacon, N. Bacon, Bateman, Beaton, Bradford,
Bradlaugh, Bright, Brooke, Brougham, Bruce, Burke, Burghley, Burnet,*
Cade, Campbell, Canning, Earl Canning, Carstares, Chatham, Chichester,
Childers, Clarendon, Clive, Cobbett,* Cobden, Cork, Coutances, O. Crom¬
well, T. Cromwell, Eliot, Ellenborough, Fawcett, Fletcher, Forster, Fox,
Foxe, * Frere, Gardiner, Gladstone, Grattan, G. Grenville, W. Grenville,
Grey,* Hampden, Harrington, Hastings, Henderson,* Horner, Hubert
Walter, Huskisson, Ireton, Kemp, Kirkcaldy, Knox,* S. Langton, W.
Langton, Law, Lawrence, Leslie, Lewis, Lilburne, Lucas, Ludlow, Lytton,
Macdonald, Macnaghten, Malcolm, Marten, Melville, C. Montagu, Morgan,
Mundella, Northumberland, O’Connell, Oldcastle, O’Leary, O’Neill, Paget,
Sir Harry Parkes, Sir Henry Parkes, Parnell, Peel, Penn, Pitt, Pownall,
Pulteney, Pym, Raffles, Reid,* Robinson, Roe, Rose, Sacheverell, St. Leger,
Shaftesbury, Sherbrooke, Sheil,* Sheridan,* T. Smith,* Stratford de
Redcliffe, Stirling, Temple,* Thurloe, Tone, Tooke, Tunstall, Vane, Wal¬
lace,* Walpole, Walsingham, Warriston, Waynflete, Wentworth, Whitbread,
Whitelocke, Wilberforce, Wilkes, Williamson, Windham, Winthrop, Win-
wood, Wolsey, Wotton, Wykeham, Wyse.

Sailors. — Anson, Blake, Boscawen, Broke, Byng, Cavendish, Cook,
Dampier, Deane, Drake, Duncan, Exmouth, Flinders,* Franklin, Frobisher,
Gilbert, Hawke, Hawkins, Hood, Leake, Monson, C. Napier, Nelson, Penn,
Popham, Raleigh,* Rodney, Smith, St. Vincent, Trollope, Vernon,
Willoughby.

Scholars. — Andrewes,* Adamson, Barrow,* Bentley, Bingham, Boece,
Bradshaw, Buchanan,* Caius,* Cheke, Colebrooke, Colet, -Conington, Creigh¬
ton, Crichton, Dodwell, Grocyn, Grosseteste, Hales, Hickes, Hort, John of
Salisbury, Jones, Jowett, Lane, Lightfoot, Linacre,* Lowth, Montague,
Morton, Ockley, Palmer, Pattison, Pearson,* Pococke, Porson, Salesbury,
Savile, T. Smith, W. R. Smith, Spelman, Thomas, Ussher, Whiston,
Wordsworth.

Soldiers. — Abercromby, Amherst, Cadogan, Campbell, Dundee, Edwardes,
Gordon, Graham, Hamley, Hardinge, Havelock, Hawkwood, Jones, Knollys,
Lake, Lambert, H. Lawrence, S. Lawrence, Leven, Mackay, Marlborough,
Monck, Moore, Morgan, Munro, Napier of Magdala, C. J. Napier, Neill,
Nicholson, Nott, Ochterlony, Oglethorpe, Outram, Picton, Pollock, Raleigh,*
Reid, H. D. Ross, R. Ross, Sabine,* Sale, Sidney,* Smith, Tarleton, F.
Vere, H. Vere, Wallace,* Waller, Williams, Wilson, Wolfe.

Travellers. — Baker, Barrow, Bowring, Bruce, Burton, Chesney, Clapperton,
Grey,* Lander, Livingstone, Mitchell, Park, Speke.

EMINENT BRITISH PERSONS.

251

The women fall into the following groups : —

Actresses. — Abington, Anne Barry, Elizabeth Barry, Becher, Bracegirdle,
Cibber, Clive, Faucit, Jordan, Keeley, Kelly, Kemble, Neilson, Oldfield,
Siddons, Woffington, Yates.

Philanthropists. — Carpenter, F ry .

Poets. — Baillie, Browning, Hemans, Landon, Nairne, Rossetti.

Religious. — Ward.

Traveller. — Kingsley.

Women of Letters. — D’Arblay, Austen, Barbauld, Behn, C. Bronte, E.
Bronte, Cavendish, Centlivre, Cowley, Cross, Eastlake, Edgeworth, Edwards,
Ferrier, Gaskell, Godwin, Inchbald, Jameson, Linton, Martineau, Mitford,
Montagu, More, Morgan, Oliphant, Opie, Radcliffe.

Woman of Science. — Somerville.

252

APPENDIX B.

ORIGINS OF BRITISH PERSONS OF ABILITY.

The significance of the place-names in the follow¬
ing list varies with their position. When the
place-name occurs between that of the grand¬
father and grandmother it refers to the father (or
the mother), our knowledge not going back so far
as the grandparents. When the place-name comes
in the centre of the page our knowledge is still
more imperfect, only comprehending the fact
that the eminent person’s family belonged to
the district in question. A query mark (?) means
that the statement is fairly probable, and has
been accepted in the body of the book, but is not
absolutely certain. The place-names in square
brackets indicate origins that are either doubtful
or further back than the grandparents ; no
account of such origins has been taken in the
summaries given in the body of the book.

BRITISH PERSONS OF ABILITY.

253

Paternal Paternal Maternal

grand- grand- grand¬
father. mother. father.

Abbot

Surrey

Abercromby

Clackmannan

Abington

England

Adam

Scotland

Adams

Cornwall

Adamson

Perth

Addison

Westmore¬

land

Adrian IV.

England

[? Herts]

Ainsworth

Lancashire

Yorks

Airy

Lincs[West-

Suffolk

moreland

and Yorks]

Alcuin

Yorks

Alesius

Midlothian

Alexander

Gloucester

of Hales

Alexander

Clackmannan

(W.)

Allen

Lancashire

Yorkshire

Amherst

Kent

Andrewes

Suffolk

Anson

Staffs

Derbyshire

Arblay, D’

Shropshire

France

Arkwright

Lancashire

Armstrong

Cumberland

Northum¬

berland (?)

Arne

England

Arnold(M.)

Hants and

Cornwall

Suffolk

[Ireland]

Arnold (T.)

Suffolk and

Ireland

Hants

[Huguenot]

Arthur

Devon [?

Cornwall]

Ascham

Yorks

Atterbury

England

Austen

Kent

Warwick

Austin

Suffolk

Babbage

Devon

Bacon (A.) Suffolk

Suffolk

Essex

Bacon (F.) Suffolk

Suffolk

Essex

Bacon (N.)

Suffolk

Bacon (R.)

Somerset

Bagehot

Somerset

Baillie

Ayr and

Lanark

Baily

England

Baker

Gloucester

Middlesex

Matei nal
grand¬
mother.

254

APPENDIX.

Paternal

Maternal

grand¬

father.

mother.

father.

Balfe

Ireland

Balfour

Haddington

England

Bancroft

Lancashire

Banim

Kilkenny

Banks (J.)

Lines

Banks (T.)

England

Bannister

Gloucester (?)

Barbauld Yorks

Barbour

Aberdeen

Barclay (A.)

Scotland

Barclay (J.)

Scotland

France

Barclay (R.)

Elgin

Barham

Kent

Barnes

Dorset

Barnfield

Shropshire

Barrow (I.)

Suffolk

Kent

Barrow (J.)

Lancashire

Barry (A.)

Somerset

Barry (C.)

England

Barry (E.)

England (?)

Barry (j. )

Cork

Baskerville

Worcester

Bateman

Norfolk

Bates

Leicester

Baxter

Shropshire

Beardsley

Scotland *

England

Beaton

Fife

Beaumont

Leicester

Becher

Ireland

Beckford Glo’ster

Beddoes

Shropshire

England

and Ireland

Bede

Durham

Bedell

Essex

Behn

Kent

Bell (A.)

Fife

Holland

Bell (C.)

Lanark

Bennett Kent

Cambs

Benson

Bentham

Hants'

(G.)

Bentham (J.)

Hants

Bentley

Yorks

Berkeley

England

Ireland (?)

Bessemer

England

* [Huguenot]

Bethell

Wilts :

Betterton

England

Bewick

Northum-

Cumberland

berland

Maternal

grand¬

mother.

BRITISH PERSONS OF ABILITY.

255

Paternal Paternal Maternal

grand- grand- grand¬
father. mother. father.

Bingham

Birch

Bishop

Shropshire

Black

Antrim

[Scotland]

Blackmore

Devon

Blackstone

Wilts

Blake (R.)

Somerset

Blake (W.) Dublin

Blow

Boece

Boniface

Bonington

Notts

Bonner

Booth

Lancashire

Borrow

Cornwall

Yorks

England

Aberdeen

Glamorgan
[and Devon
& Glo’ster]
Wilts

Notts (?)

Forfar

Devon

Notts

England

Norfolk

[Huguenot]

Boscawen

Boswell

Bowen

Boyle (A.
Earl of
Cork)
Boyle
(Robert)
Bracegirdle
Bradford

Cornwall

Ayr

Mayo

Hereford

Ireland and
Austria
Kent

Hereford

Kent'

Northants

Yorks

Bradlaugh

Suffolk

Bradley

Durham

Wilts

Bradshaw

Ireland

Antrim

(H.)

[Cheshire
and Derby]

Bradshaw

Lancashire

(W.)

Bradwardine

Hereford (?)

Broke

Brooke

Suffolk

England
[? Norfolk]

Breton

Brewster

Essex

Scotland

Bright

Warwick

[Wilts]

Bronte (C.)

Down

Cornwall

Bronte (E. )

Down

Cornwall

Brougham

Cumberland

Fife

Brown

Berwick

Midlothian

Kent

Browne(H.)

Norfolk

Maternal

grand¬

mother.

Ayr

256

APPENDIX.

Paternal

Maternal

grand¬

father.

mother.

father.

Browne (R.)

Lines

Herts

Browne (T. )

Browne (W.)
Browning
(EO

Browning Dorset
(R.)

Bruce (H.)

Cheshire

Devon

Glamorgan
[and Scot¬
land]

Northum¬

berland

Sussex

Germany

Bruce (J.)

Bruce (M. )

Stirling

Kinross

Stirling

Buchanan

Buckle

Bull

Stirling

Somerset

Haddington

Yorks

Bunyan

Burbage

Burges

Bedford

Herts

Somerset

Bedford

Burke

Dublin

Ireland

Burne-Jones

Wales

England

Burnet

Aberdeen

Dumfries

Burns

Kincardine

Ayr

Burton West-

Ireland

Herts

(Richard) moreland [and

French

Huguenot]

Burton

Leicester

(Robert)

Butler (J.)

Berks

Butler (S.)

Worcester

Butterfield

England

Byng

Kent

Byrd

Lincoln (?)

Byron

Cornwall

Aberdeen

Cade

Ireland (?)

Cadogan

Ireland

[Somerset]

Caedmon

Yorks

Cairns

Down [Scot¬

land]

Caius

Norfolk

Calamy France

Suffolk

Camden

Staffs

Lancs

Campbell

Lanark

Argyle

(C.)

Campbell

Fife

(G.)

Campbell

Scotland

(J.)

Maternal

grand¬

mother.

Scotland

Ayr

Scotland

Cumber¬

land

BRITISH PERSONS OF ABILITY.

257

Paternal Paternal

grand- grand¬
father. mother.

Maternal

grand¬

father.

Campbell

(T.)

Campion

(E.)

Campion

(T.)

Candlish
Canning (C.

)

Canning(G.)

Argyle

Essex

Ayr

Londonderry
[Wilts]
Wilts and
Londonderry

Chaucer Suffolk.

Cheke

Cheselden

[? Essex]

Hants

Essex

Argyle

Essex

Ayr

Canning (S.)

Wilts and

Londonderry

Cantelupe

Bucks

France

Canton

Gloucester

Carey

Northants

Carleton

Tyrone [Lon¬

Tyrone

donderry]

Carlile

Devon

Carlyle

Dumfriess

Carpenter

Worcester

(M.)

Carpenter

Worcester

(W.)

Carrington

Middlesex

Carstares

Lanark

AYL

Cartwright

Herts

Case

Kent

Cattermole

Norfolk

Cavendish

England

(H.)

Cavendish

Essex

(M.).

Cavendish

Suffolk

(T.)

Caxton

Kent

Cayley Yorks

[Norfolk]

Cecil

Northants

Lincoln

Centlivre

Lincoln

Norfolk

Challoner

Sussex

Chalmers

Fife

Chantrey

Yorks

Chapman

Herts

Chatterton

Gloucester

Cambs

Rutland

Maternal

grand¬

mother.

258

APPENDIX.

Paternal

grand¬

father.

Paternal

grand¬

mother.

Maternal

grand¬

father.

Maternal

grand¬

mother.

Chesney

Chichele

Chichester

Antrim
[Scotland]
Northants (?)

Devon

Childers

Chillingworth

Church

Oxford

Yorks

England
[partly Jewish
both sides]

Germany

Churchill

England

Scotland (?)

(C.)

Churchill

Dorset

Devon

(J.)

Cibber (C.)

Denmark

Rutland

Cibber (S.)
Clapperton

Clare

Clarke

Clifford

Clive (K.)

Dumfriess

Northants

Norfolk

Kilkenny

England

Devon

England

Clive (R.)

Shropshire

Lancs

Clough

Denbigh

Yorks

Cobbett

Cobden

Cockburn

Berwick

Surrey

Sussex

France

Cockerell

Coke

Colby

Colebrooke

Colenso

Coleridge

Somerset

Norfolk

Wales

England

Cornwall

Devon

Gloucester

(H.)

Coleridge

Devon

(S.)

Colet

Bucks

Norfolk

Collier

Collins (W.)

Collins (W. Wicklow

Sussex

Cambs

Scotland

W.)

Colman

Columba

Ireland

England

Ireland

Columban

Congreve

Conington

Constable

(Connaught)

Staffs

Lines

Suffolk

Ireland

(Leinster)

Suffolk

Cook

[Yorks]
Northumber¬
land (?)

England

BRITISH PERSONS OF ABILITY.

259

Paternal

grand¬

father.

Paternal

grand¬

mother.

Maternal

grand¬

father.

Cooke (G.)

England (?)

Scotland (?)

Cooke (H.)

Down

[Scotland]

[England]

Cooper(First

Hants

Dorset

Lord Shaf¬
tesbury)

Cooper(Third

Lord)

Cooper (Ast-

Norfolk

England

ley)

Cooper (S.)

England

Copley (J.S.)

Yorks and

Lancs and

Limerick

Clare

Copley (Lord Limerick Clare

England (?)

Lyndhurst)

Cosin

Norfolk

Cotes

Cotman

Norfolk

Leicester

Cotton (A.)

Cheshire

Essex

Cotton (C.)

Staffs

Derby

Cotton (R. )
Contances

[Cheshire]

Cornwall

Leicester

Coverdale

Yorks

Cowley (A.)

Cowley (H.)

Devon

England

Cowper

Herts

Norfolk

Cox

Warwick

Cozens Russia

Crabbe Suffolk

Kent

Suffolk

Cranmer

Lines and

Lines

Notts

Crawshaw

Yorks

Creighton

Cumberland

Crichton

Dumfriess

Fife

Croker

Crome

Devon

Norfolk

Galway

Cromwell

Glamorgan

Cambs (?)

(O.)

and Hunts

Cromwell

Notts

(T.)

Cross

Flint

Derby (?)

Cruikshank

Cudworth

Midlothian

England

Cullen

Lanark

Curran

Cumberland

and Cork

Cuthbert

Scotland

(PLothians)

Dalrymple

Ayr

Dalton

Cumberland

Maternal

grand¬

mother.

26o

APPENDIX.

Paternal

Maternal

grand¬

father.

mother.

father.

Dampier

Somerset

[? Huguenot]

Danby

Wexford

Daniel

Somerset

Darwin (C.) Lincoln

Staffs

Darwin (E. )

Lincoln

[Norfolk

and Notts]

Davenant

Oxford

Davies

Wilts

Davy

Cornwall

[Norfolk]

Dawson

Notts

Day

England

Deane

Gloucester

Bucks (?)

Dee

Radnor

England (?)

Defoe

Flanders (?)

and Northants

Dekker

England

De Morgan

England

Dempster

Aberdeen

Scotland

Denham

England

Ireland

Denman

Notts

Scotland

De Quincey

Lancashire

D’Ewes

Holland Cambs

Dorset

Dibden

Hants

Dickens

Hants

Digby

Rutland

Bucks

Dobell ’

Kent

Dobson

Herts

Doddridge

Devon

Germany

Dodgson

England

Dodwell

Yorks (?)

Dolben

Denbigh

Carnarvon ’

Donne

England

[and Wales ?]

Douglas

Scotland

Dowland

England

Doyle

Dublin

[England ?]

Drake

Devon

Drayton

Warwick

Drummond

Midlothian

(T.)

Drummond

Midlothian

(W.)

Dryden

Cumberland

Northants

and Northants

Dudley

Sussex

Duff

Perth

Dugdaie

Lancashire

Maternal

grand¬

mother.

Cheshire

Kent

BRITISH PERSONS OF ABILITY

Paternal Paternal Maternal

grand- grand- grand¬
father. mother. father.

Du Maurier
Dunbar

France

Hadding

England

ton (?)

Duncan

Dundas

Perth

Ross

Dunning

Duns

Devon

Northum¬

Devon

berland [or

Bewick

Dunstan

D’Urfey

France

Somerset(?)

Hunts

Dyce

Aberdeen

Eastlake

Devon

(C.)

Eastlake

Lancashire

Norfolk

(Lady)

Edgeworth

Longford

[England]

Germany

Edmund

Berks

Edwardes

Shropshire

[Wales]

Edwards

Suffolk

Ireland ai

Norfolk

Eliot

Cornwall

Elliston

Suffolk

Elyot

Somerset

Emlyn

Rutland (?)

Kent

Erskine

Berwick

Orkney

Etheridge

Oxford

Etty

Yorks

Faber

[Huguenot]

Yorks

Falconer

Fanshawe

Faraday

Elgin

Derby

Yorks

Kent

Farquhar

Ireland

Fauci t

England

France

Fawcett

Westmore¬

Wilts (?)

land

Ferguson

Fergusson

Aberdeen

Banff

Aberdeen

Ferrar

Cheshire

Ferrier

Renfrew

Forfar

Fielding

Warwick Somerset

Somerset

Fitzgerald

Ireland (?)

Ireland

Fitzgibbon

Limerick

Flamstead

Flaxman

Norfolk

Derby

Fletcher

Haddington

(A.)

Fletcher (J.)

Norfolk

26l

Maternal

grand¬

mother.

Oxford

262

APPENDIX.

Paternal

Maternal

grand¬

father.

mother.

father.

mother.

Flinders

Lincoln

Flood

Ireland

Flower

Flerts

Warwick

Foote

Cornwall

Forbes (C.)

Isle of Man

Forbes (T.)

Aberdeen

Perth

Ford

Devon

Forster

Norfolk

Fortescue

Devon (?)

Fox (C. T. ) Wilts

Lincoln

Fox (G.)

Leicester

Foxe (T.)

Lincoln

Foxe (R.)

Lincoln

Francis

Ireland

Frankland

Lancashire

Franklin

Lincoln

[Norfolk]

Franks

Worcester

Norfolk

Freeman

Warwick

Frere

Norfolk

[Suffolk]

Surrey

F robisher

Yorks

[Wales]

Froude

Devon

Cumberland

Fry

Norfolk

Fuller

[? Berks]

Essex

Surrey

[and Suf¬

folk]

Gainsboro’

Suffolk

Galt

Ayr

Gardiner

Suffolk

Garnett

Derby

Garrick

France

Ireland

Gascoigne

Beds

Yorks

Gaskell

Berwick

Lancashire

Gauntlett

Wilts

Glamorgan

Gay

Devon

Geoffrey

Monmouth

Gibbon

Kent and

Shropshire

[Suffolk]

Gibbons

Cambridge

(?)

Gibson

Carnarvon

Wales

Gifford

Devon

Gilbert (H.)

Devon

Gilbert (J.)

Derby

Gilbert (W.)

Suffolk

Gillray

Lanark

Giraldus

England

Wales

Girtin

England

Gladstone

Midlothian

Ross

BRITISH PERSONS OF ABILITY.

263

Paternal Paternal Maternal

grand- grand- grand¬
father. mother. father.

Glisson

Dorset

Godwin

Ireland England (?)

Ireland

(M.)

Godwin

Cambs (?)

(w.).

Gcldsmith

Ireland

[England]

Gordon

Scotland England

England

Gower

Suffolk

[or Kent]

Graham (G.

) Cumberland

Yorks

Graham (JY

) Kincardine

Grattan

Dublin

Gray

Bucks

Green

Oxford

Greene

Norfolk

Grenville

Bucks

(GO

Grenville

Bucks

Norfolk (?)

(wo

Gresham

Norfolk

Northampton

Grew

Warwick

Notts

Grey

England

[Leicester]

Grocyn

Wilts

Grosseteste

Suffolk

Grote

Germany

Lincoln

[Flemish

[French

Huguenot]

Hale

Gloucester

Hales (G.)

Somerset

Hales (S.)

Kent

Herts

Hall

Leicester

Hal lam

Lines

Halley

Derby

Halliwell-

Phillips

Lancashire

Hamilton

Ireland and

(A.)

Scotland

Hamilton

Lanark

(WO

Hamilton

Ireland Wigton

Ireland (?)

(W. R.)

[Scotland]

Hamilton

Berwick

(T.)

Hamley

Cornwall

Shetland

Hampden

Bucks

Hunts

Hardinge

Kent

Harrington

Lines

Northants

Hartley

Yorks (?)

Maternal

grand¬

mother.

264

APPENDIX.

Paternal

Maternal

grand¬

father.

mother.

father.

mother.

Harvey

Kent

Hastings

Worcester

Havelock

Durham

[Lincoln]

Hawke

Cornwall

Yorks

Hawkins

Cornwall

Devon

Cornwall

Hawkwood

Essex

Haydon

Devon

Hazlitt

Antrim

Cambs

Hemans

Henderson

Sligo

Fife

Italy

Lancashire

Herbert (A. )

Montgomery

England (?)

Herbert

(E.)

Montgomery

[Monmouth]

Shropshire

Herbert

(G.)

Herrick

Montgomery

[Monmouth]

Leicester

Shropshire

Herschel

Germany

England

Heylin

Heywood (J.)
Heywood

(T.)

Montgomery

England

Lincoln

Kent

Hi ekes

Hill

Hinton

Hoadley

Yorks

Worcester

Oxford and
Bucks [and
Essex]

England

Yorks

Hobbes

Wilts (?) '

Wilts

Hodgson

Hogarth

Hogg

Holcroft

Cheshire

Westmore¬

land

Selkirk

England

Lancashire

Holl Germany

England

Hood (S.)

Hood (T.)

Hook (T.)

Somerset

Scotland

Norfolk

Dorset

Hook (W.)
Hooke

Hooker

Horner

Horrocks

Norfolk

Devon

Midlothian

Lancashire

England

Aberdeen

Hort

Howard

Ireland [and
Somerset
and Hants]

England

England
[? Suffolk]

Howell

Hubert

Wales

Suffolk [or
Norfolk]

Wales

BRITISH PERSONS OF ABILITY.

265

Paternal

Maternal

grand¬

father.

mother.

father.

mother.

Hughes

Yorks

Hume

Berwick

Hunt

England

Hunter (J.)

Ayr

Lanark

Hunter (R.)

Roxburgh

Huskisson

Staffs

Hutcheson Ayr

Ireland

Armagh ( ?)

Hutton (J.)

Midlothian

Hutton (R.)

Ireland (?)

Notts

Huxley

Warwick

Wilts

[? Staffs]

Hyde

Cheshire

Wilts

Inchbald

Suffolk

Ireton

Derby

Irving

Dumfriess

[Fr. Hu¬

guenot]

Jameson

Dublin

Jeffrey

Midlothian

Lanark

Jenner

Glo’ster (?)

Gloucester

Jerrold

England

Jervis

Staffs

Staffs and

Cheshire

Jevons

Staffs

Lancashire Lancashire

Jewel

Devon

John of

Wilts

Salis¬

bury

Johnson

Staffs

Worcester

J ohnston

Dumfriess

Ayr

Jones (I.)

Denbigh ( ?)

Jones (J.

Suffolk and

T.)

Norfolk

Jones (W.)

Anglesey

England

Jones (W.

Cardigan

Essex

B.)

Jonson

Dumfriess(?)

England (?)

J ordan

Ireland

Joule

Derby

Lancashire

Jowett [Yorks]

Yorks

Lancashire

Juxon

England

Kean

Ireland

Keats

Devon [or

Cornwall]

Keble

Gloucester

Scotland [&

[Suffolk]

Hants ?]

Keeley

Suffolk

Keene

Suffolk

Kelly Dublin

Westmeath

England

Kemble (F.) Hereford Ireland

France

Switzerland

266

APPENDIX.

Paternal

grand¬

father.

Paternal

grand¬

mother.

Maternal

grand¬

father.

Kemble (J.) Hereford Ireland

France

Kemble (J.

Hereford

Ireland

P-)

[? Wilts]

Kemp

Kent

Ken

[Somerset ?]

Middlesex

Kennett

Kent

Kenyon

Flint

Cheshire

Killigrew

Cornwall

Norfolk

King (T.)

England

King (W.)

Aberdeen

Kingsley(C.)

Devon

Kingsley

Devon

(M.)

Kirkcaldy

Fife

Knight

England

Knollys

Cheshire

Knowles

Dublin

Cork

Knox

Haddington

Lake

Middlesex

Lamb

Lincoln

Herts

Lambert

Yorks

Lancaster

England

Lander

Cornwall

Landon

Hereford

Wales

Landor

Staffs

Warwick

Landseer

Lincoln

Lane

liereford

Suffolk (?)

Langland

Shropshire (?)

Langton (S.)

England

Langton

Leicester

(W.)

Lardner

Hants

Latimer

Leicester

Law (E.,

Westmore¬

Cumberland

Baron

land

Ellenboro’)

Law (E., West-

Cumberland

Earl of moreland

Ellenboro’)

Law (J.)

Edinburgh

Law (W.)

Northampton

Lawes (II.)

Wilts C?)

Lawes (J. B.)

Herts

Oxford

Lawrence

Londonderry

Donegal

(H.)

[Scotland]

Lawrence

Londonderry

Donegal

(JO

| Scotland]

Lawrence

Hereford

(SO

Maternal

grand¬

mother.

Switzer¬

land

BRITISH PERSONS OF ABILITY.

267

Paternal

grand¬

father.

Paternal

grand¬

mother.

Maternal

grand¬

father.

Lawrence

Worcester

(T.)

Layard

[Huguenot]

Kent

Leake

Suffolk

Lee

England

[Herts or

Leicester ?]

Leech

Ireland

Lefroy

England

[Huguenot]

Leighton

Yorks

Middlesex

(F.)

[Shropshire]

Leighton

Forfar

(R.)

Leland

Lancashire

Leslie (A.)

Aberdeen

Perth

Leslie (C.)

Aberdeen

Leslie (J.)

Aberdeen

L’ Estrange

Norfolk

Lever

Lancashire

Ireland

[England]

Lewes

Wales

Lewis (J.F.) Germany

England (?)

Lewis (G.C.)

Radnor

Hereford

Lewis (W.

Wales

T.)

Liddon

Hants (?)

Surrey

Lightfoot

Yorks

Northumber

land

Lilburne

Durham

Lillo

Holland

England

Linacre

Kent (?)

Lindsay

Haddington

Lingard

Lincoln

Linnell

Bucks

[? Northants]

Linton (E.) Norfolk

Norfolk

Linton (W.) Aberdeen

Lister

Yorks (?)

Liston

England (?)

Littleton

Devon

Livingstone

Inverness

Lanark

Lloyd

Anglesey

Locke

Somerset

Lockhart

Lanark

Midlothian

Lodge

Shropshire

Northants

Loftus

Yorks

Lovelace

Kent

Lover

Dublin

Lowe

Worcester

Maternal

grand¬

mother.

268

APPENDIX

Paternal

grand¬

father.

Paternal

grand¬

mother.

Materna

grand¬

father.

Materna 1
grand¬
mother.

Lowth

[Lines and

Dorset

Hunts]

Lucas

Clare

Ludlow

Lydgate

Wilts

Suffolk

Somerset

Lyell

Forfar

Yorks

Lyly

Lytton (Earl

Norfolk Herts

Kent

Ireland

of)

Lytton

Norfolk

Herts

(Lord)

Macaulay

Argyll

Gloucester

Macdonald

Macfarren

Sutherland

Lanark

Mackay

Sutherland

Ross

Mackintosh

Inverness

Mackenzie

Midlothian

Nairn

Macklin

Down (?)

Westmeath (?)

Maclaurin

Maclise

Argyll

Elgin

Cork

[Scotland]

Macnaghten

Antrim

Tyrone

Macready

Dublin

Lincoln and

Derby

Maginn

Cork

Maine

Roxburgh

Berks

Malcolm

Fife and

Dumfriess

Malone

Westmeath

Essex

Malthus

Surrey

Manning

Map

Ilerts

Hereford

and Wales

Marlowe

Kent

Kent (?)

Marry att

England

[Huguenot]

Germany

Marsh

Marshall

Hunts

England

Marston

Shropshire

Italy

Marten

Berks

Martineau

Norfolk

Northum¬

(H.)

[Huguenot]

berland

Martineau

Norfolk

Northum¬

(JO

[Huguenot]

berland

Marvell

Massinger

Wilts

Yorks

Mathews Glamorgan

England (?)

(C.)

Mathews

England

(C- J.)

[Glamorgan]

BRITISH PERSONS OF ABILITY.

269

Paternal

grand¬

father.

Paternal

grand¬

mother.

Maternal

grand¬

father.

Maurice Wales

Maxwell Midlothian

Mayow

Mead Bucks

Melville Forfar

Merivale Devon
[North-
ants, Notts
& France]

Middleton

(C.)

Middleton

Germany

(T.)

Mill (J.)

Mill (J. S.) Forfar
Millais

Miller

Milman Devon
Milner (I.)

Milner (J.)

Milton

Mitchell

Mitford

Moffat

Monck

Monson

Montagu

(C.)-

Montagu

(E.)

Montagu

(R.)

Moore (J.)
Moore (T.)
More (H.)

More (T.)
Morgan
(G. O.)

Forfar

Jersey

[France]

Cromarty( ?)

Devon

Yorks

Lancashire

Oxford

Stirling

Northum¬

berland

Devon

Lines

Northants

Yorks

Stirling

Kerry

Norfolk and
Suffolk
Herts (?)
Wales

Morgan (H.) Glamorgan

Morgan (S.) Mayo

Morland Berks (?)’

(G.)

Morland(S.)

Morley

Norfolk

Northum¬

berland

Cornwall

Forfar

Norfolk

Yorks (?)

England

Forfar

England

Ross

Gloucester

Haddington

Devon

Lines

Cambs and
Kent

England

Lanark

Wexford

Gloucester

[Beds ?]
Sweden (?)
[Huguenot
& England]

Shropshire

England

Maternal

grand¬

mother.

Devon

Hants

Ireland’

270

APPENDIX.

Paternal

Maternal

grand¬

father.

mother.

father.

mother.

Morris Worcester Notts

Worcester

[from

Welsh

Border]

Morton

Yorks

Mulready

Clare

Mun

England

Munday

Staffs (?)

Mundella

Italy

Wales

Munden

England

Munro

Lanark

Murchison

Ross

Murdock

Ayr

Murray

Edinburgh

[Perth]

Myers

Yorks

Cumberland

Nairne

Perth

Napier (C.)

Stirling

Lanark (?)

Napier (C. Scotland

Dublin

[France]

Napier (J.)

Midlothian

Napier (Sir

Antrim

Napier (R.

Scotland (?)

C.)

Napier (W. Scotland

Dublin

[France]

J- PO

Nash

Hereford

[? Suffolk]

Nasmyth(J.)

Midlothian

Nasmyth (P.)

Midlothian

Naylor

Yorks

Neale (E.V.) Berks

Warwick

Neale (J. M.)

Staffs

Essex

Needham

Derby

Oxford

Neill

Ayr

Neilson (J.)

Lanark

Neilson (L.

England

A.)

Nelson

Norfolk

Suffolk and

Norfolk

Newcomen

Devon

[Lines]

Newman

Cambs

[Huguenot]

(F.)

[Holland]

Newman

Cambs

[Huguenot]

(JO

[Holland]

Newton

Lincoln

Rutland

[English

family in

Haddington]

BRITISH PERSONS OF ABILITY.

271

Paternal

grand¬

father.

Paternal

grand¬

mother.

Maternal

grand¬

father.

Nicholson

Down

Antrim

Northcote

Norton

Devon

Bucks

Nott

Hereford

Norfolk

Nowell

Lancashire

Noye

Cornwall

Ochterlony

Ockham

Forfar

Surrey (?)

Ockley

Norfolk

O’Connell

Kerry

Cork

Oglethorpe

Y orks

T ipperary

Oldcastle

Hereford
[and Wales]

Oldfield

England

Oldys

Dorset and

Gloucester

O’Leary

Oliphant

Perth

Cork

[Highlands]

(L.)

Oliphant

Midlothian

Fife

(M.)

O’Neill

Tyrone

Opie (A.)

Suffolk

Norfolk

Opie (J.)

Cornwall

Ordericus

France

England

Otway

[Yorks ?]

England

Oughtred

Northum¬

berland

Outram

Derby

Aberdeen

Owen (J.)

Wales

Owen (Sir

Bucks

Lancashire

R.)

[Huguenot]

Owen (R.)

Mont¬

Wales

gomery

Paget (J.)

Norfolk

Cheshire

Paget (W.)

Staffs

Paine

Norfolk

Paley

Yorks

Palmer (E.

H.)

Cambs

Norfolk and

Scotland

[Highlands]

Palmer (J.)

England

Palmer (R.)

Leicester

Yorks

and Essex

Palmer (S.) Devon

[orWilts]

Paris

England

Park

Selkirk

Parker (M.)

Norfolk

Parker (T.)

Staffs

Cheshire

Maternal

grand¬

mother.

272

APPENDIX.

Paternal

grand¬

father.

Paternal

grand¬

mother.

Maternal

grand¬

father.

Parkes (E.)

Warwick

Parkes (H.

Staffs

Shropshire

s.)

Parkes (H.)

Warwick

Parnell

Queen’s

[United

County

States]

Parr

Leicester

France

Parsons (R.)

Somerset

Parsons (W.)

Kent

Pater Bucks

and Nor

folk

[Flanders]

Paterson

Dumfriess

Patmore

England [&

Scotland

Germany]

Patrick

Dumbarton

Pattison

Yorks

Payne

France

Lincoln (?)

Pearson (J).

Westmore¬

Merioneth

land

[or Carnar

von]

Pearson (J.

Durham

L.)

Pecock

Wales

Peel

Lancashire

[ Y orks]

Peele

Devon (?)

Peirce

England

Pellew

Cornwall

Penn(SirW.)

Gloucester

Yorks

[or Wilts]

Penn (W.) Glo’ster

Yorks

Holland

Penry

Brecknock

Pepys

Cambs

Perkins

Warwick

Perry

Aberdeen

Peters

Cornwall

Petty

Hants

Phelps

Somerset

Phillip

Aberdeen

Picton

Pembroke

Pitman

Wilts

Pitt (Earl of Dorset

Elgin

Waterford

Chatham)

Pitt (W.) Dorset

Waterford

Bucks

Pococke

Hants

Pollock

Berwick

England

Pope

Hants (?)

Yorks

Popham

[Devon ?] England

Maternal

grand¬

mother.

BRITISH PERSONS OF ABILITY.

273

Paternal Paternal Maternal

grand- grand- grand¬
father. mother. father.

Maternal

grand¬

mother.

Porson

Pott

Norfolk

England

Norfolk

Powell

Pownall

Radnor

Cheshire
[& Lincoln]

Montgomery

Pratt

Oxford

Carnarvon

[Devon]

Preston

Prestwich

Shropshire

Northants

Shropshire

[Lancs. &

Ireland]

Price

Glamorgan

Yorks

Priestley

Yorks

Prior

Dorset

Somerset

Prynne

Glo’ster
and So¬

merset

[Shrop¬

shire?]

Pugin

France

England

Pulteney

Leicester

Purcell

Shropshire

(?)

Pusey

Norfolk

[Walloon

Huguenot]

Pym

Somerset

Kent

Quarles

Essex

Quin

Dublin

Radcliffe

Rutland

Nottingham

[Holland]

[or Essex]

Raeburn

Raffles

Yorks

Dumfries

Raleigh

Devon [and

Devon

Cornwall]

Randolph

Sussex

Northants

Ray

Essex

Reade

Oxford

Reid (T.)

Aberdeen

Banff

Reid (W.)

Aberdeen

Reynolds

Devon [and

Devon

Holland]

Richardson

Surrey

Ridley

Northum¬

berland

Ritson

Westmore¬

land

Robertson

Fife

Ayr

Robinson

West- Kilkenny

meath

274

APPENDIX.

Paternal

Maternal

grand¬

father.

mother.

father.

mother.

Rodney

Somerset

Roe

Essex

Norfolk

Rogers Wales [&

Cheshire

France]

Romney

Westmore-

lonn

Cumberland

Roscoe

Lancashire

Rose

Nairn

Ross (H. D.)

Wigton

Haddington

Ross (R.)

Down

Cork

Rossetti (C. )

Italy

England

Rossetti(D.G.)

Italy

England

Rowe

Devon

Beds

Rowlandson

England

Ruskin

Midlothian

Russell

Down

Antrim

Sabine

Kent

Shropshire

Sacheverell Notts &

Leicester

Derby

Sadler Warwick

[Huguenot]

& Derby

St. John

Beds

St. Leger

Kent

Sale

Hunts

Salesbury

Denbigh

Sancroft

Suffolk

Sandby

Notts

Savage

England

Savile

Yorks

Scarlett

England

Scott (D.)

Lanark

Scott (G. G.)

Lincoln

Scott (J.)

Northum¬

berland

Scott (Walter)

Midlothian

Scott (William)

Northum¬

berland

Scotus

Ireland

Sedgwick

Yorks

Seeley

Bucks

Selden

Sussex

Kent

Shakespeare

Warwick

Sharp

Yorks

Shell

Kilkenny

Tipperary

Sheldon

Staffs

Shelley

Sussex

Surrey

Sheridan Cavan

England

Shirley

England

Siddons

Hereford

Ireland

[? Wilts]

BRITISH PERSONS OF ABILITY.

275

Paternal Paternal Maternal

grand- grand- grand¬
father. mother. father.

Maternal

grand¬

mother.

Sidgwick

Sidney

Yorks

Sussex

Simpson

Linlithgow

[Huguenot]

Sinclair

Skelton

Caithness

Norfolk (?)

Smart

Durham

Radnor

Smith (A.)

Aberdeen

Fife

Smith (H.

Cambs

Northamp¬

G.)

ton

Smith (H. J.

England (?)

Cork

S.)

Smith (R. A)

Ayr

Lanark

Smith (S.)

England

France

Smith (T.)

Essex

Lancashire

Smith (W.)
Smith (W.

Oxford

Aberdeen

Gloucester

R.)

Smith (W.

England

S.J

Smollett

Dumbar¬

Dumbarton

ton

Worcester

Somers

Worcester

Scotland

Somerville

Surrey

[Yorks]

South

Kent

Southey

Somerset

Hereford

Southwell

Norfolk

Sussex

Speke

Somerset

Norfolk

Spelman

Norfolk

Surrey

Spencer

Lancashire

Sprat

Dorset

Stanhope

Derby

Stanley

Cheshire

Steele

Dublin

Dublin [or
Wexford]

Steevens

England

Stephen

Aberdeen

Dorset (?)

Stephenson

Scotland

Northum¬

(?) and

North¬

umber¬

land

berland

Sterne

Notts

Ireland

[Suffolk]

& Yorks

Stevens

Dorset

Stevenson

Lanark

Midlothian Mid-

lothian

Stewart Bute Ayr

Stothard Yorks Shropshire

j8#

2 ?6

APPENDIX.

Paternal

grand¬

father.

Stow

mother.

Street

Stubbs

Worcester

Sturgeon

Dumfriess

Suckling

Norfolk

Sullivan

Ireland

Swift Yorks

Hereford

Sydenham

Dorset

[Somerset]

Symonds Shrop-

Oxford

shire [Wales]

Tait

Tallis

Aberdeen &
Midlothian

Tarleton

Lancs.

Taylor (H.)

Northum¬

berland

Taylor (J.)

Gloucester
& Cambs

Taylor (W.)

Telford

Norfolk

Temple

Warwick &

Derby

Tennyson

Lincoln

Thackeray Yorks

Wilts

Thirlwall

Thomas

Thompson

Northum¬

berland

Thomson

Thurloe

Roxburgh

Thurlow

Norfolk

Tillotson

Toland

Tone Kildare

Tooke

Cheshire

Trelawney

Cornwall

Trevitheck

Cornwall

Trollope (A.)Lincoln

Holland

Trollope(H.)

Lincoln

Tunstall

Lancs.

Turner

Tye

Devon

Tyndale

Tyndall Carlow

Gloucester

(?)

[Glo’ster]

Maternal Maternal

grand- grand¬
father. mother.

England
Lancs. (?)

Lancs.

Italy

Leicester

[Lancashire
& Yorks]

England [?

Essex]

Lancs.

Durham

Norfolk

Dumfriess

Lancs.

(?) & Surrey
Lincoln

Radnor

Radnor (?)

Cork

Berwick

Essex (?)

Suffolk

Yorks

London¬

derry

England

Cornwall

Yorks (?)
Notts (?)

England

BRITISH PERSONS OF ABILITY.

2 77

Paternal

Maternal

grand¬

father.

mother.

father.

Udall

Urquhart

Cromarty

Hants

Ussher

Ireland

[England]

Vanbrugh

Flanders

England

[Hugue

not]

•

Vane

Kent

Essex

Varley

Lincoln [or

Yorks

Notts]

Vaughan

Brecknock

Vere (F.)

Essex

Vere (H.)

Essex

Vernon

Cheshire &

Staffs

Wakley

Devon

Walker

Wallace

Renfrew
and Ay:

England

Ayr

[? Shrop
shire]

Waller (E.)

Bucks

Waller (W.)

Kent

Wallis

Northants

Kent

Walpole (H. ) N orf oik

Suffolk

Kent

Walpole (R.)

Norfolk

Suffolk

Walsh

Walsingham

Kent [Nor¬

Kildare

Herts

folk]

Walter

Walton

Staffs

England

Warburton

Cheshire

Ward (M.)

Yorks

Ward (S.)
Ward(W.G.)

Herts

England

Warham

Warton

Hants

Surrey

Watson (R.)

Westmore¬

land

Watson (T.)
Watt

Aberdeen &

England

Lanark

Renfrew

Waynflete

Lincoln [?

& Essex]

Webster

Yorks

Wedgwood

Staffs

Shropshire

Wentworth

Armagh

Wesley (C.) Devon[&

Staffs

Warwick

Ireland]

Maternal

grand¬

mother.

278

APPENDIX.

Paternal

grand¬

father.

Paternal Maternal

grand- grand¬
mother. father.

Wesley (J.) Devon [&
Ireland]

Westmacott
Whately

Staffs

Wheatstone
Whewell
Whiston

Whitbread Beds

White (G.) Hants

White(J.B.) Waterford
[Dublin]

Surrey [and
Oxford ?]
Gloucester
Lancashire

Whitefield

Whitehead

Gloucester

Whitelocke

Whitgift

Whittington

Whitworth

Wilberforce Yorks
(S.)

Wilberforce

Lincoln
Glo’ster (?)

Yorks and
Lancashire

Oxford

Yorks

England

Westmore¬

land

JW.)

Wilde

Ireland

Galway

[Durham]

England

Wilfrid

Wilkes

Beds

Wilkie

Midlothian

Wilkins

Oxford

Wilks

Worcester &

Dublin

Willet

William

France

England

Malmesbury

Yorks

William

Newburgh

Williams Mon-
(C. H.) mouth

[Worces¬

ter]

Williams Denbigh

(D.)

Williams Monmouth

(Sir R.)

Williams Wales (?)

(R.)

Williams Anglesey

,(W.)

Warwick

Herts

Bucks

Sussex

Spain

Bucks

Warwick

Oxford

Fife

Cheshire

Somerset (?)

Denbigh

Maternal

grand¬

mother.

BRITISH PERSONS OF ABILITY.

2 79

Paternal

Maternal

grand.

grand¬

father.

mother.

father.

mother.

Williamson

England

(J-.J

Williamson Yorks

Yorks

Had¬

Yorks

(W. C.)

dington

Willoughby

Notts

Perth

Wilson (J.)

Renfrew

Wilson (R.)

Flint

Wilson (Sir

Yorks

R.)

Wilson (T.)

Cheshire

Windham

Norfolk

Essex

Winthrop

Suffolk

•

Suffolk

Winwood

Northants

Wiseman Waterford

Kilkenny

[settled

Spain]

Wishart

Forfar

Wilton

Hants [Lan¬

cashire]

Woffington

Ireland

Wolcot

Devon

Wolfe

Ireland

Yorks

[Wales]

Wollaston

Staffs [? &

F rench

Huguenot]

Wolsey

Suffolk

Woodward

England

Woolner

Suffolk

Wordsworth

Yorks

Warwick

Glo’ster

[Charles)

[Mont¬

gomery]

Wordsworth

Y orks

Warwick

Glo’ster

(Christopher)

[Mont¬

gomery]

Wordsworth

Yorks

(W.)

Wotton (H.)

Kent

Wotton (N.)

Kent

Wren Warwick

Wilts

[Durham]

Wright (J.)

Derby

Wright (T.)

Yorks

Wulfstan

Warwick

Wyatt

Kent (?)

Surrey

Wycherley

Shropshire

Wycliffe

Yorks

Wykeham

Hants

Wyse

Waterford

28o

APPENDIX.

Paternal Paternal Maternal

grand- grand- grand¬
father. mother. father.

Yates

Yorke

Wilts

England (?)

Kent

Young (A.)

Suffolk

Holland

Young (E.)
Young (T.)

Somerset

England

Somerset

Maternal
grand -
mothe

28i

APPENDIX C.

OCCUPATION

OR SOCIAL

ABBOT

clothworker

Abercromby .

•

upper class

Abmgton soldier

cobbler

Adam

architect

Adams .

farmer

Adamson

baker

Addison .

•

Church

Airy

•

collector of

excise

Alexander

•

upper class

Allen

•

upper class

Andrewes

•

merchant and
sea captain

Arblay, D’

• ’

musician and
author

Arkwright

•

humble

Arne

•

upholsterer

Armstrong

•

corn merchant

Arnold (M.) .

schoolmaster

Arnold (T.) .

•

collector of

customs

Arthur .

•

official

Ascham .

yeoman

Atterbury

•

Church

Austen .

•

Church

BACON (A.)

upper class

Bacon (F.)

•

upper class

Bacon (N.)

•

sheepreeve

Bacon (R. )

•

upper class

Bagehot .

•

banker

Baillie .

minister *

* “Minister” is here throughout applied
to all religious denominations except the
Church of England. “ Priest ” has refer¬
ence to the Roman Catholic Church, whether
before or since the Reformation.

POSITION OF FATHERS.

Baily

banker

Baker

merchant

Balfour .

upper class

Bancroft

upper class

Banim farmer

trader

Banks (T.) steward

surveyor

Bannister

actor

Barbauld

Church

Barclay (J.) .

lawyer

Barclay (R.) .

army

Barnes .

farmer

Barnfield

upper class

Barrow (I.)

draper

Barrow (J.)

peasant

Barry (A.)

apothecary

Barry (C.)

stationer

Barry (E. )

lawyer

Barry (J. )

builder

Baskerville

humble

Bates

manufacturer

Baxter .

yeoman

Beardsley

brewery mana¬

ger

Beaumont upper class lawyer

Beckford upper class commerce

Beddoes .

doctor

Bedell .

yeoman

Becher .

actor

Behn

barber

Bell (A.)

barber

Bell (C.)

Church

Bennett .

musician

Benson .

manufacturer

Bentham (G. )

naval architect

Bentham (J.) .

lawyer

Bentley .

yeoman

Bessemer

engineer

282

APPENDIX.

Bethell .

•

doctor

Campbell (G.)

upper class

Betterton

•

cook

Campbell (J.)

minister

Bewick .

•

farmer

Campbell (T.)

trade

Birch

•

Church

Campion (E.)

•

bookseller

Bishop .

merchant

Candlish

doctor

Black

•

wine merchant

Canning (C.) .

upper class

Blackmore

•

Church

Canning (G.) .

upper class

Blackstone

•

silk mercer

Canning (S.) .

banker

Blake (R.)

•

merchant

Cantelupe

upper class

Blake (W.) .

•

hosier

Canton .

business

Bonington

•

governor of

Carey

schoolmaster

gaol

Carleton

peasant farmer

Bonner .

•

priest (?)

Carlile .

shoemaker

Booth

•

upper class

Carlyle .

mason

Borrow maltster

soldier

Carpenter (M.)

minister

Boscawen

•

upper class

Carpenter (W. B. )

minister

Boswell upper

class lawyer

Carrington

brewer

Bowen .

•

Church

Carstares

minister

Bowring

woollen trade

Case

Church

Boyce

•

cabinet maker

Cattermole

upper class

Boyle (R.)

•

upper class

Cavendish (H.)

upper class

Bradford

•

yeoman

Cavendish (M.)

upper class

Bradlaugh

•

clerk

Cavendish (T.)

upper class

Bradley .

•

upper class

Cayley .

merchant

Bradshaw (H.)

•

banker

Cecil

upper class

Breton .

•

trade

Challoner

wine cooper

Brewster

minister

Chalmers

merchant

Bright .

•

miller

Chantrey carpenter

farmer

Bronte (C.) .

•

Church

Chatterton

shoemaker

Bronte (E.) .

•

Church

Chaucer .

vintner

Burke

civil service

Chesney .

army

Brown .

•

purser

Chichele yeoman

draper

Browne (R.) .

•

upper class

Chichester

upper class

Browne (T.) .

•

mercer

Childers upper class Church

Browning (R.)

•

clerk

Church .

merchant

Bruce (H. )

•

upper class

Churchill (C.)

Church

Bruce (M. )

•

weaver

Churchill (J.)

upper class

Buchanan

•

farmer

Cibber (C.) .

sculptor

Buckle .

•

merchant

Cibber (S.) .

upholsterer

Bunyan .

•

whitesmith

Clapperton

doctor

Burke

•

lawyer

Clare

labourer

Burnet upper

class lawyer

Clive (R.J

upper class

Burns

•

farmer

Clough .

cotton mer¬

Burton (Sir Richard)

army

chant

Butler (J.)

•

draper

Cobbett .

peasant

Butler (S.) .

•

farmer

Cobden .

yeoman

Byng

•

upper class

Cockburn

upper class

Byron

•

upper class

Cockerell

architect

Coke

upper class

CADOGAN .

■

lawyer

Colby

army

Cairns

•

army

Colebrooke

banker

Calamy .

•

minister

Colenso .

mineral agent

Camden .

•

painter stainer

Coleridge (H.)

author

Campbell (C. )

•

carpenter

Coleridge (S.)

•

Church

OCCUPATION OR SOCIAL POSITION. 283

Colet

merchant

Day

collector of

Collier .

Church

customs

Collins (W.) .

hatter

Deane

•

upper class

Collins (W. W.) .

artist

De Foe butcher

yeoman

Colman .

upper class

De Morgan

•

army

Columba

upper class

Dempster

•

upper class

Congreve

army

Denham .

•

upper class

Conington

Church

Denman .

•

doctor

Constable

miller

De Quincey .

merchant

Cook

agricultural la¬

D’Ewes .

•

upper class

bourer

Dibdin .

merchant

Cooke (G.)

army

Dickens .

•

clerk

Cooke (Ft.) .

farmer

Digby .

•

upper class

Cooper (First Lord

Dobell .

•

wine merchant

Shaftesbury)

upper class

Doddridge

•

oilman

Cooper (Third Lord

Dodgson

•

Church

Shaftesbury)

upper class

Dodwell

•

army

Cooper (A.) .

Church

Dolben .

•

Church

Copley (Lord Lynd-

Donne .

•

trade

hurst) .

artist

Douglas .

•

upper class

Cotes

Church

Doyle

•

artist

Cotman .

mercer

Drake

upper class

Cotton (A.) .

upper class

Drummond (T.)

•

lawyer

Cotton (C. )

upper class

Drummond (W.)

•

upper class

Cowley .

trade

Dryden .

•

upper class

Cowper upper class

Church

Dudley .

•

upper class

Cox

blacksmith

Du Maurier upper

class glass manu-

Cozens .

artist

facturer

Crabbe .

collector of

Dundas upper class lawyer

customs

Dunning

•

lawyer

Crashaw

Church

Dunstan .

upper class

Crichton

upper class

Dyce

•

doctor

Croker .

surveyor of

customs

EASTLAKE (C.)

•

admiralty agent

Crome . . .

journeyman

Eastlake (Lady)

•

doctor

weaver

Edgeworth

•

upper class

Cromwell (0.)

upper class

Edwardes

Church

Cromwell (T.) blacksmith innkeeper

Edwards

•

army

Cross

carpenter

Eliot

•

upper class

Cruikshank

artist

Elyot

•

lawyer

Cudworth

Church

Emlyn .

•

trade

Cullen .

lawyer

Erskine .

•

minister

Etheridge

•

army

Etty

•

miller and

DALRYMPLE .

upper class

baker

Dalton .

weaver

Dampier

farmer

FANSHAWE

upper class

Danby .

farmer

Faraday .

smith

Daniel .

music master

Farquhar

Church

Darwin (C.) .

doctor

Faucit

actor

D’Avenant

vintner and

Fawcett .

draper

innkeeper

Ferguson

day labourer

Davy

yeoman

Fergusson

clerk

Dawson .

cheesemonger

Ferrar

merchant

284

APPENDIX.

Ferrier .

•

law

Grenville (W.)

•

upper class

Fielding upper

class army

Gresham

•

merchant

Fitzgerald

upper class

Grew

•

minister

Fitzgibbon

lawyer

Grey

•

army

Flamsteed

maltster

Grote

•

banker

Fletcher (A.) .

upper class

Hale

•

lawyer

Fletcher (J.) .

Church

Hallam .

Church

Flinders .

doctor

Halley .

•

soap-boiler

Flood

lawyer

Hamilton (A.)

•

upper class

Foote

trade

Hamilton (W. )

•

doctor

Forbes (E.)

banker

Hamley .

•

navy

Forbes (J.;

upper class

Hampden

upper class

Ford

upper class

Hardinge

•

Church

Forster

minister

Harrington

•

upper class

Fox (C. J.) .

upper class

Hartley

•

Church

Fox (G.)

weaver

Harvey .

•

yeoman

Foxe (R. )

yeoman

Havelock

•

ship builder

Francis .

Church

Hawke .

lawyer

Franklin

trade

Hawkwood

•

tanner

Franks .

navy

Haydon .

•

printer

Frere

ironmaster

Hazlitt .

•

minister

Froude .

Church

Hemans .

•

merchant

Fry

banker

Henderson

farmer

Fuller

Church

Herbert (A.) .

•

lawyer

Herbert (E.) .

•

upper class

Herbert (G. ) .

•

upper class

GAINSBOROUGH

woollen manu¬

Herschel

•

man of science

facturer

Hickes .

•

farmer

Galt

sea captain

Hill

schoolmaster

Gardiner

cloth worker

Hinton .

minister

Garrick .

army

Hoadley Church

schoolmaster

Gascoigne

upper class

Hobbes .

•

Church

Gaskell .

minister

Hodgson

•

banker

Gauntlett

Church

Hogarth .

•

yeoman

Geoffrey

priest

Hogg ^ .

•

farmer

Gibbons .

musician

Holcroft

•

shoemaker

Gibson .

market gar¬

Holl

•

engraver

dener

Hood (S.)

•

Church

Gifford .

sailor

Hood (T.) .

•

publisher

Gilbert (J.)

estate agent

Hook (T.)

•

composer

Gilbert (W. ) .

recorder

Hook (W. ) .

•

Church

Gillray

soldier

Hooke .

•

Church

Giraldus

upper class

Horner .

•

merchant

Girtin

rope -maker

Horrocks

• •

farmer

Gladstone

merchant

Hort

•

upper class

Godwin (W. ) .

minister

Howard .

upholsterer

Goldsmith

Church

Howell .

Church

Gordon .

army

Hughes .

•

author

Gower .

upper class

Hunter (J.)

farmer

Graham (G. ) .

doctor

Hutcheson

•

minister

Graham (J.) .

upper class

Hutton (J.)

merchant

Grattan

lawyer

Hutton (R. ) .

•

minister

Gray money scrivener lawyer

Huxley .

•

schoolmaster

Grenville (G.)

upper class

Hyde

•

upper class

OCCUPATION OR SOCIAL POSITION. 285

INCHBALD

farmer

Law (W.)

grocer

Irving .

tanner

Lawes (IT.) .

•

musician

Lawrence (IT. )

•

army

JAMESON .

•

artist

Lawrence (J.)

•

army

Jeffrey lawyer

(clerk in court

Lawrence (S.)

•

trade

of sessions)

Lawrence (T.)

•

innkeeper

Jenner .

•

Church

Lawes (J.)

•

upper class

Jerrold .

•

actor

Layard .

•

civil service

Jervis upper

class lawyer

Leake

•

naval gunner

Jevons .

•

nail maker

Lee

Church

Johnson.

trade

Leech

coffee house

Johnston

trade

keeper

Jones (I.)

•

cloth worker

Lefroy .

Church

Jones (W.)

•

yeoman

Leighton (F.)

•

doctor

Jonson .

•

minister

Leighton (R.)

•

doctor

Jordan .

stage under¬

Leslie (A.) upper

class army

ling

Leslie (C. )

•

Church

Joule

•

brewer

Leslie (J.) upper

class Church

Jowett .

•

furrier

L’ Estrange

•

upper class

Lever

builder

KEATS

•

livery stable¬

Lewis (G. C.)

upper class

man

Lewis (J. F. ) .

•

engraver

Keble

•

Church

Lewis (W. T.)

actor

Keene

•

law

Liddon .

navy

Kemble (F.) .

•

actor

Lightfoot

accountant

Kemble (J. M.)

•

actor

Lillo

•

jeweller

Kemble (J. P.)

•

actor

Lingard .

•

^carpenter

Kemp

•

upper class

Linnell .

•

wood carver

Ken

•

lawyer

Linton (E.)

Church

Kennett .

•

Church

Lister

wine merchant

Kenyon .

•

farmer

Livingstone .

small tea dealer

Killigrew

•

upper class

Lloyd

Church

King (T. ) .

•

trade

Locke

lawyer

King (W.) .

•

miller

Lockhart

minister

Kingsley (C. ) .

•

Church

Lodge .

•

grocer

Kingsley (M.).

•

doctor

Lovelace

•

upper class

Kirkcaldy

•

upper class

Lover

•

stockbroker

Knight .

•

Church

Lowe

•

Church

Knowles .

•

author

Lowth .

•

Church

Knox

•

peasant

Lucas

upper class

Ludlow .

upper class

LANCASTER

soldier shopkeeper

Lyell

JL X

botanist

Lander .

•

innkeeper

Lytton (B,)

army

Landor .

•

doctor

Lytton (Earl) .

upper class

Landseer

•

artist

Lane

•

Church

MACAULAY

author

Lardner .

•

minister

Macfarren

•

theatrical

Latimer .

•

yeoman

manager

Laud

•

clothier

Mackenzie

doctor

Law (J.)

•

goldsmith

Mackintosh

•

army

Law (E., Baron

Maclaurin

minister

Ellenborough)

•

Church

Maclise soldier

shoemaker

Law (E., Earl

Macnaghten

•

lawyer

Ellenborough)

•

upper class

Macready

•

actor-manager

286

APPENDIX.

Maginn .

. schoolmaster

Myers

. Church

Maine

. doctor

Malthus .

. author

NAIRNE

. upper class

Manning

. merchant

Napier (C.)

. upper class

Marlowe

. shoemaker

Napier (C. J.) upper class army

Marsh

. Church

Napier (J.)

. upper class

Marshall

poor glover

Napier (Sir J.)

. merchant

Marston .

. lawyer

Napier (R.) .

army

Marten .

. lawyer

Napier (W J. P.)

upper class army

Martineau (H.)

manufacturer

Nash

. Church

Martineau (J.)

. manufacturer

Nasmyth (J.) .

. artist

Marvell .

. Church

Nasmyth (P.) .

. artist

Mathews (C.) .

bookseller minister

Naylor .

. yeoman

Mathews (C. J.)

. actor

Neale (E.) .

. Church

Maurice .

. minister

Neale (J.)

. Church

Mead

minister

Neill

. army

Merivale

lawyer

Neilson (J.) .

. millwright

Middleton (C.)

. Church

Nelson .

Church

Mill (J.)

. shoemaker

Newman (F. W.)

. banker

Mill (J. S.) .

author

Newman (J. H.)

banker

Miller

captain of

Newton .

. yeoman farmer

sloop

Nicholson

. doctor

Milman .

. doctor

Northcote

. watchmaker

Milner (I.)

. business

Norton .

. business

Milner (J.)

. tailor

Nott

. yeoman farmer

Milton . .

scrivener yeoman ( ?)

Mittord .

. upper class

OGLETHORPE

. army

Moffat .

custom house

Oldcastle

. upper class

Monck .

. upper class

Oldfield .

. army

Monson .

. upper class

Oldys

. lawyer

Montagu (E.) .

upper class

Oliphant (L.) .

lawyer

Montagu (R.) .

Church

Oliphant (M.)

. business

Moore (J.) doctor author

O’Neill .

upper class

Moore (T.)

. provision

Opie (A.)

. doctor

dealer

Opie (J.)

. carpenter

More (T.)

. lawyer

Ordericus

. priest(married)

Morgan (G. 0.)

Church

Otway

. Church

Morgan (H.) .

. upper class

Oughtred

. Church

Morgan (S.) .

actor

Outram .

. civil engineer

Morland (G.) .

artist

Owen (J.)

. Church

Morland (S.) .

Church

Owen (Sir R.)

. merchant

Morris

bill broker

Owen (R. )

. saddler

Morley .

. upper class

Morton .

. mercer

PAGET(T.) brewer shipowner

Mulready

. leather

Paine

. farmer

breeches

Paley

. Church

maker

Palmer (E. H.)

. schoolmaster

Mun

merchant

Palmer (J.)

. soldier

Munday .

. draper

Palmer (R.) .

. Church

Munden .

. poulterer

Palmer (S.)

. bookseller

Munro .

. merchant

Park

. farmer

Murchison

doctor

Parker (M.) .

. calenderer of

Murdock

millwright

stuffs

Murray .

. publisher

Parker (T.)

. lawyer

OCCUPATION OR SOCIAL POSITION. 287

Parkes (H.) .

farmer

Reid (T.)

•

minister

Parkes (H. S.)

ironmaster

Reid (W.)

•

minister

Parnell .

upper class

Reynolds

•

Church

Parr

•

doctor

Richardson

•

carpenter

Parsons (R.) yeoman blacksmith

Ritson .

•

yeoman

Parsons (W.) .

•

carpenter

Robertson

•

minister

Pater

doctor

Robinson

•

navy

Patmore .

author

Rogers .

•

merchant

Patrick .

deacon (mar-

Romney

•

builder and

ried)

cabinet maker

Pattison .

Church

Roscoe market gardener tavern

Pearson (J.) .

Church

keeper

Pearson (T. L.)

artist

Rose

•

Church

Peel

manufacturer

Ross (H. D.) .

•

army

Peele

business

Ross (R. )

•

army

Pellew .

•

sea captain

Rossetti (C.) .

•

opera libret-

Penn (Sir W. ) merchant sea captain

tist, etc.

Penn (W.)

•

navy

Rossetti (D. G.)

•

opera libret-

Pepys

•

tailor

tist, etc

Perry

•

builder

Rowe

•

lawyer

Petty

clothier

Rowlandson .

•

merchant

Phelps .

outfitter

Ruskin .

wine merchant

Phillip .

•

soldier

Pitman .

•

factory over-

SADLER

•

upper class

seer

St. John .

•

upper class

Pitt (W., Earl

St. Leger

•

upper class

Chatham)

•

upper class

Sale

•

army

Pitt (W.)

•

upper class

Sancroft .

yeoman

Pollock .

saddler

Scott (D.)

•

engraver

Pope

merchant

Scott (G. G,) .

•

Church

Porson .

weaver

Scott (J.)

•

coal factor

Pott

•

lawyer (scrive-

Scott (Walter)

•

lawyer

ner)

Scott (William)

•

coal factor

Powell .

•

ale keeper

Sedgwick

•

Church

Pratt

•

lawyer

Seeley .

•

publisher

Preston .

•

farmer

Selden .

yeoman

Prestwich

•

wine merchant

Shakespeare yeoman trade

Price

minister

Sharp

salter

Priestley

•

cloth dresser

Sheil

•

upper class

Prior

joiner

Sheldon .

•

menial servant

Pugin

•

architect

Shelley .

•

upper class

Pulteney

•

upper class

Sheridan

•

actor

Purcell .

•

music copyist

Siddons .

•

actor

Pusey

upper class

Sidgwick

•

Church

Sidney

•

upper class

QUARLES .

upper class

Simpson .

baker

Quin

•

lawyer

Sinclair .

•

upper class

Smart

nobleman’s

RADCLIFFE

•

trade

steward

Raeburn .

•

mill owner

Smith (A.)

•

lawyer

Rattles .

•

sea captain

Smith (H. J. S.)

•

lawyer

Raleigh .

•

upper class

Smith (S.)

business

Randolph

•

steward

Smith (T.)

•

upper class

Ray

•

blacksmith

Smith (W.)

•

farmer

288 APPENDIX.

Smith (W. R.)
Smith (W. S.)
Somers .
Somerville
South
Southey .
Southwell
Speke
Spelman .
Spenser .

Sprat
Stanhope
Stanley .
Steele
Stephen .
Stephenson
Sterne
Stevens .
Stevens .
Stevenson
Stewart .
Stothard .
Street
Stubbs .
Sturgeon
Suckling .
Sullivan .
Sydenham
Symonds

TAIT .

Tarleton .
Taylor (H.)
Taylor (J.)
Taylor (W. ) .

Telford .
Temple .
Tennyson
Thirlwall
Thompson
Thomson
Thurloe .
Thurlow .
Tillotson
Toland .

Tone

Tooke

Trelawney

Trevitheck

Trollope (A.) .
Trollope (H.) .
Tunstall .

. minister
. army
lawyer
navy

. merchant
. farmer
. upper class
. army

upper class
cloth maker
. Church
upper class
. Church
. lawyer
. official
. fireman
army

. house painter
. sea captain
. engineer
. minister
. publican
. lawyer
• currier
. shoemaker
. upper class
. musician
. upper class
. doctor

. upper class
. merchant
. upper class
. barber surgeon
. manufacturer
shepherd
. upper class
. Church
. Church
. upper class
. minister
. Church
. Church
. cloth worker
. priest
. coach maker
. poulterer
. army

. mine manager
of humble
origin
. lawyer
. Church
. upper class

Turner .
Tyndall .

URQUHART
Ussher .

VANBURGH
Vane
Varley .
Vaughan
Vere (F.)

Vere (H.)
Vernon .

WALKER .

Wallace .

Waller (E.) .

Waller (W.) .
Wallis .
Walpole (H.) .
Walpole (R.) .
Walsingham .
Walter .

Walton .

War bur ton
Ward (M.) .

Ward (S.)

Ward (W. G.)
Warham
Warton .

Watson (R. ) .
Watt
Webster .

Wedgwood

Wentworth

Wesley (C. ) .

Wesley (J.)’ .

Westmacott

Whateley

Wheatstone

Whewell

Whiston

Whitbread

White (G.) .

White (J. B.) .

Whitefield .

Whitelocke

Whitgift

Whitworth

Wilberforce (W.)

Wilde .

Wilfrid .

. barber
upper class

. upper class
. lawyer

. sugar baker
. upper class
. tutor

upper class
. upper class
. upper class
. upper class

. working jew¬
eller

. upper class
. upper class
. upper class
. Church
. upper class
. upper class
. lawyer

coal merchant
. yeoman
. town clerk
. upper class
. lawyer
. financier
. upper class
. author
. Church
. carpenter
. actor and musi¬
cal composer
. potter
, doctor
. Church
. Church
sculptor
. Church
. music seller
. carpenter
. Church
. brewer
. lawyer
. merchant
, innkeeper
. lawyer
. merchant
. minister
. upper class
. doctor
. upper class

OCCUPATION OR SOCIAL POSITION. 289

Wilkes .

malt distiller

Woodward

tallow chandler

Wilkie .

minister

Woolner

post office offi¬

Wilkins .

goldsmith

cial

Willett .

lawyer

Wordsworth (Chas.)

Church

Williams (C. H.) .

manufacturer

Wordsworth

Chris-

Williams (Sir R.) .

upper class

topher)

• .

Church

Williams (R. ).

tailor

Wordsworth (W.) .

lawyer

Williams (W.).

Church

Wotton (H.)

• •

upper class

Williamson (J.)

Church

Wotton (N. )

• •

upper class

Williamson (W.) .

gardener

Wren

• •

Church

Wilson (J.) .

manufacturer

Wright (J.)

• «

lawyer

Wilson (R.) .

Church

Wright (T.)

• •

printer

Wilson (R. T.)

artist

Wu If stan

• •

upper class

Windham

army

Wyatt

• •

upper class

Winthrop

lawyer

Wycherley

• •

lawyer

Wiseman

merchant

Woffington

bricklayer

Wolcot .

doctor

YATES .

• •

ship’s ste wai-

Wolfe .

army

Yorke

• •

la wyer

Wollaston

Church

Young (A.)

• ,

Church

Wolsey .

grazier

Young (E.)

« •

Church

290

APPENDIX D.

STATURE.

5 ft. o in.
5 ft. I in.

( W. Blake
| T. Moore

i Caius

j H. Coleridge
( Keats

5 ft. 2 in . Hunter

)De Quincey
G. White
S. Wilberforce

5 ft. 4 in.
5 ft. 5 in.

5 ft. 6 in.

5 7 in.

5 ft. 8 in.

. . . . Nelson

j Linnell
( Richardson

( Cockburn
\ R. Fergusson
. ... < Jeffrey *
j B. Lytton
( J. Wesley

/ Bright
j Madox Brown
. . . . < Maurice

) C. J. Napier
( Otway

"Byron
T. Lawrence
Macaulay

_ { J. S. Mill

Rossetti
Swift t
Tooke

5 ft. 9 in.

5 ft. io in

5 ft. ii in

"Burns
S. Coleridge
Dickens
{ Gordon
Paine
Priestley
W. Wordsworth

"Burke
O. Cromwell
Hogg
Huxley
Kenyon
Marryatt
J C. Mathews
“* ' Mulready
Prestwich
Ruskin
Stevenson
Street

A. Trollope
^Wakley

"Sir R. Burton
Carleton
Carlyle
Froude
Liston

* * ' O’Connell
Porson
Sedgwick
Southey
J. Wilson

* According to one description Jeffrey was “ scarcely five feet.”
t It is worth noting that Swift was considered tall by his contemporaries.

STATURE.

291

6 ft. o in . s

R. Boyle

Clapperton

C. Darwin

Millais

W. J. Napier

Park

W. Scott

Selden

Tait

'Cobbett '
J. Cook
Fielding
Galt

6 ft. 1 in . ■{ Hobbes

Leech

Petty

Reade

Tennyson

6 ft. 2 in . Trevitheck

[ Borrow

x- ) Fawcett

6 ft. 3 m . < T • *

J j Irving *

( Thackeray

C J. Bruce

6 ft. 4 in . -< Duncan

( Graham

* The estimates of Irving’s height vary
between 6 ft. 2 in. and 6 ft. 4 in.

292

APPENDIX E.

PIGMENTATION.

The individuals whose pigmentation I have been
able to ascertain are here arranged alphabetically
in their groups : Fair, Medium, Dark. To facili¬
tate reference no note is here taken of the three
sub-divisions of the medium group.

I.— FAIR.

Addison, Amherst, Arkwright, Beaton, Berkeley, Blackmore, Bright,
Brown, Buchanan, C. Campbell, J. Campbell, S. Canning, Cantelupe
Clifford, Congreve, Copley (Lord Lyndhurst), Cowper, Cullen, Dee, Denham,
Etty, Fergusson, Fitzgerald, A. Fletcher, J. Fletcher, Freeman, Frobisher,
Gordon, Gray, Hardinge, Hogarth, Hogg, Hort, Hutcheson, A. Leslie,
B. Lytton, Earl Lytton, Munden, Newton, H. S. Parkes, Peel, Pellew, Sir
W. Penn, Pusey, Randolph, Richardson, Ruskin, Sabine, Shelley, A. Smith,
Smollett, Street, Thackeray, Tooke, Trevitheck, Turner, Tyndall, Vane,
Wakley, Walker, W. Waller, Wallis, Westmacott, Whitefield, Whitgift,
J. Wilson, Wolfe.

II.— MEDIUM.

Anson, M. Arnold, Austen, Austin, F. Bacon, N. Bacon, Baillie, Bancroft,
J. Banks, Barnes, I. Barrow, J. Barrow, E. Barry, J. Barry, Becher,
C. Bronte, Bennett, J. Bentham, Bentley, Bewick, Blackstone, W. Blake,
Bonington, Boscawen, Boswell, Bowring, R. Boyle, Bradley, H. Bradshaw,
Brewster, Brougham, E. Browning, R. Browning, Burbage, Burke, Burns,
S. Butler, Byng, Byron, Cadogan, T. Campbell, Canton, Carlyle, M. Car¬
penter, Cayley, Cecil, Chalmers, Chantrey, Chatterton, Chaucer, Chilling-
worth, C. Churchill, C. Cibber, Clark, R. Clive, Cobbett, Cockburn, Coke,
S. Coleridge, William Collins, Colman, Cooper (First Lord Shaftesbury),
R. Cotton, A. Cowley, Crabbe, Cranmer, Crichton, Croker, O. Cromwell,
Cross, Cruikshank, C. Darwin, E. Darwin, Davy, Defoe, Denman, De Quincey,

PIGMENTATION.

293

Dickens, Dobson, Dryden, Flaxman, Flowers, C. J. Fox, Francis, Fry, Gains¬
borough, Gifford, Girtin, Gladstone, Goldsmith, G. Graham, Grattan, Grote,
Flarrington, Harvey, Hastings, Haydon, Hazlitt, Hill, Hoadley, Hobbes,
Holcroft, T. Hood, Hooke, Horner, J. Hunter, Huxley, Hyde, Inchbald,
Jenner, Jerrold, Jervis, Johnson, I. Jones, Jonson, Jowett, Keats, F. Kemble,
Kenyon, Knox, Lambert, Lander, Landon, Landor, Landseer, E. Law
(Baron Ellenborough), J. Law, W. Law, Latimer, H. Lawrence, J. Law¬
rence, S. Lawrence, Leech, J. Leslie, Lever, G. H. Lewes, Livingstone,
Locke, Macaulay, Mackenzie, Mackintosh, Maclise, Macready, Maginn,
Malone, Manning, Marryatt, H. Martineau, J. Martineau, Mead, C. Mid¬
dleton, J. S. Mill, Millais, Miller, Milton, Mitford, C. Montagu, T. More,
G. Morland, Morris, Murchison, C. Napier, C. J. Napier, Nelson, J. H.
Newman, O’Connell, Oldfield, A. Opie, J. Opie, Sir R. Owen, R. Owen,
W. Paget, Paine, Park, Patmore, Pepys, Petty, Perkins, Pitt (Lord Chatham),
Pitt, Pococke, Pope, Popham, Pratt, Priestley, Prior, Pulteney, Raffles,
Reynolds, Rogers, Roscoe, Rose, C. Rossetti, D. G. Rossetti, Sancroft,
J. Scott, Walter Scott, William Scott, Selden, Shakespeare, Sidgwick,
Sidney, Sinclair, Smart, W. S. Smith, Somers, Somerville, Spelman,
Spenser, Stanley, Stephenson, Stewart, Stothard, Suckling, Swift, Sydenham,
Tait, H, Taylor, Thomson, Thurloe, H. Vere, E. Waller, R. Walpole,
Warburton, Warham, Watt, J. Wesley, Whiston, G. White, S. Wilberforce,
W. Wilberforce, Wilde, Wilkie, C. H. Williams, W. Williamson, Wolcot,
W. Wordsworth, Wren, Wyatt, Wycherley.

III.— DARK.

Abercromby, Babbage, Bagehot, Baxter, Betterton, Bishop, Black, Borrow,
Bracegirdle, J. Bruce, Burnet, Burton (Sir R.), Camden, J. Churchill, S.
Cibber, Cobden, H. 'Coleridge, J. Cook, Crome, T. Cromwell, Curran,
Dampier, Day, Dempster, Dibdin, Digby, Dolben, W. Drummond, Faraday,
Ferrier, Fielding, J. Foxe, Froude, Galt, Garrick, Gay, 'Gibson, M.
Godwin, Grenville (Baron), Gresham, Hale, Henderson, E. Herbert, T.
Hook, Hooker, Howard, Hunt, Ireton, Irving, Jeffrey, Jewel, Juxon, Kean,
Keble, Keene, J. M. Kemble, J. P. Kemble, Ken, Lamb, Lancaster,
Laud, T. Lawrence, A. Leslie, Lovelace, Marvell, Melville, J. Milner,
J. Moore, T. Moore, H. More, L. A. Neilson, Nicholson, Northcote,
M. Oliphant, Otway, Oughtred, Outram, J. Owen, Paley, Parr, R. Parsons,
Phillip, Picton, Prestwich, Quarles, Raleigh, Raeburn, Ray, Reade,
R. Reid, Ridley, Romney, Sedgwick, Sheridan, Siddons, S. Smith, Southey,
Steele, Steevens, Stevenson, Symonds, J. Taylor, Temple, Tennyson,
Thurlow, Tillotson, Ussher, H. Walpole, Whitelocke, J. Williamson,
Windham, Winwood, Wishart, Woffington, Wolsey, J. Wright, Yates.

INDEX.

The names of authorities are italicised.

ABERDEEN, GENIUS OF, 61 ;
university, 145.

Actors, regional distribution of great,
74 ; parentage of, 87 ; pigmentation
of, 214.

Ah'lfeld , 129.

Akenside, 9.

Angina pectoris and genius, 187.

Anglo-Danish district, genius of, 49,

68.

Ansell, 107, 1 12, 1 13, 125, 128, 1 31,
156, 160.

Apoplexy and genius, 179.

Arblay, F. d’, 141, 159.

Arbuthnot, 9.

Area, distribution of genius on basis
of, 33 et seq.

Aretceus , 183, 186.

Aristotle, 220, 230.

Army and parentage of genius, 84.

A rreat, 86.

Art isans and partage of geniu s, 83.

Artists, regional distribution of, 73 ;
heredity of, 84 et seq. , 97 ; pig¬
mentation of, 213.

Asthma and Genius, 187.

Awkwardness a U genius, muscular,
201.

BACON, F., 51, 70.

Balde , 182.

Ball, B., no, 169.

Bankers among parentage of genius,
81.

Banks, Sir J., 142.

Barrow, J., 142.

Beauty and genius, 217.

Beckett, 26.

Beddoe , 35, 46, 47, 49, 56, 86, 209,
210, 21 1, 214.

Bentham, J., 135.

Biographical methods, 16 et seq.
Birthplace as a criterion of origin, 21.
Births, causes of excess of male, 1 1 3.
Blake, 190.

Bonn CTniversity, 146.

Boys in genius-producing families,
predominance of, 112.

Bradshaw, J.

Bronte, C., 159-
Brown, T., 9.

Browne, Sir T., 54, 219.

Browning, E. B., 159.

Bruce, J., 135.

Brynmor-Jones , 47, 59.

Brythons, 48, 58.

Buchanan, 150.

296

INDEX.

Burns, 218.

Byron, 140.

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY
AND GENIUS, 69, 144 et seq.
Campbell , H ., 44, 120.

Cant lie, 44.

Carman , Miss, 119.

Carpenters and parentage of genius,
82.

C asset, hi, 199.

Cattell,J. M., 8, 11, 15, 124.

Caxton, 150.

Celibacy and genius, 152 et seq.
Chalmers, 142.

Chamberlain , A. F., 137.

Chatterton, 141, 174, 218.
Cheerfulness and genius, 220.
Christopher, 207.

Chronological distribution of British
genius, n.

Clergy and the parentage of genius,
79, 89-

Clouston, 198.

Clumsiness and genius, 201.

Collins, 128.

Collins, F. H., 106, 164.

Commercial avocations and parentage
of genius, 81 et seq., 89.

Constable, 135.

Consumptive men of genius, 179.
Cooley, C. H., 91.

Cotton, Sir A. T., 174.

County basis, distribution of genius
on, 29 et seq.

Cowley, 153.

Cowper, 195.

Craftsmen and parentage of genius,

8a.85.89.

Criminality in relation to genius, 1 10,
1 18, 126, 128, 132.

Cromwell, T., 142
Cullen, 183.

DALTON, 153.

Darwin, C., 55, 69, 96, 151.

Dexter, E ., 146,

Dickens, 135.

Dictionary of National Biography , 1 ,
4, 5, 6, 7, 14, 16, 18.

Disparity of parents5 age at eminent
child’s birth, 130, 132.

Divines, regional distribution of, 65 ;
ill health of, 178 ; pigmentation of,
214.

Doctors and parentage of genius, 84.

Douai College, 145.

Down, Langdon , 80, no, 118, 131.

Doyle, Sir Conan, 24, 39, 41.

Dramatic ability, regional distribu¬
tion of, 74.

Dryden, 219.

Dublin, genius of, 64.

Duckworth , Sir Dyce, 185.

Dugdale , 118.

Duncan, Matthews, 129, 134.

Dutch elements in British genius, 27,

43-

EAST ANGLIA, GENIUS OF, 40,
42, 49, 50, 51, 70, 213.

Edinburgh, genius of, 61 ; Uni¬
versity, 145.

Education of men of genius, 143 et
seq.

Eichholz , 199.

Eighteenth century, genius of, 1 1 ,

12, 14, 35-

Eldest-born children, genius and, 1 16
et seq., 208.

Eliot, George, 159.

Engelmann, f. G., 165.

Environment on genius, influence of,

75-

Epilepsy and genius, 196.

Explorers, pigmentation of, 214.

INDEX.

297

Eye -colour, 209 et seq.

Eyes of men of genius, 217.

FATHERS OF EMINENT MEN,
ABILITY OF, 99 et seq. ; age of
at eminent child’s birth, 120 et seq.

Ferd, 201.

Fertility of men of genius, 163 et seq.

First-born children, 116 et seq 208.

Flemish elements in British genius,
27, 43-

Fletcher , Joseph, 34, 75.

Foreign countries, residence of men
of genius in, 149 et seq.

Foreign elements in British men of
genius, 26.

France, residence of British men of
genius in, 144, 150.

French elements in British men of
genius, 26 et seq., 43, 64.

G ALTON, F., 67, 68, 91, 94, 101,
108, 109, 1 18, 124, 127, 166, 169,
175, 206, 225, 226.

Garrod, 184.

Geissler , 1 1 3.

Genius, sense in which the word is
used, 19.

German elements in British genius,
27-

Giantism, 207.

Gibbon, 147.

Gilbert , J. A., 2 07.

Gilbert, W., 10, 70.

Gildas, 56.

Glasgow University, 145.

Gottingen University, 146.

Goidels, 48, 58.

Goldsmith, O., 141.

Goodhart, 201.

Gout and genius, 180 et seq.

Gras set, 231.

Gregory, Lady , 65.

Guppy, H. B ., 4 7.

HAIR-COLOUR, 209 et seq.

Hales, S., 71, 222.

Hall, Marshall, 198.

Hall, R., 9.

Hamilton, Lady Emma, 6.

Hamilton, Sir W. R., 196.
Handwriting and genius, illegible,
200.

Hartwell, E. M., 198.

Harvey, 55, 71.

Health of men of genius, 134, 177*
Heidelberg University, 146.

Herbert of Cherbury, Lord, 196.
Hobbes, 53, 135.

Holway, R. S ., 128.

Flooker, 219.

Huguenots, 26, 64.

Humanism in England, 13.

Hume, 138.

Humphry, Sir J., 1 1 9.

Hutchinson, Woods, 184.

IDIOCY IN RELATION TO
GENIUS, 80, no, 1 18, 126, 1 31 ,
134, 203, 228.

Imprisonment of men of genius, 223.
Infancy of men of genius, 133 et seq.
Infantilism, 208.

Insanity in relation to genius, no,
128, 187, 1 88 et seq., 227, 229.
Ipswich, genius of, 41.

Ireland, W. W., 203.

Irish genius, 23 et seq., 28, 63 et seq.,

75-

Italian elements in British genius, 27.

JASTROW,/., 137.

Jeffreys, 9.

Jewellers among parentage of artists,

86.

298

INDEX.

Jews, 26.

Jutes, 56.

KENT, GENIUS OF, 34, 40, 43, 55-
Korosi , 131.

Kraepelin , 201.

LANDOR, 54.

Lawyers and parentage of genius, 84.
Lay cock, 185.

Leicestershire, genius of, 49.
Leinster, genius of, 49.

Leslie, C., 120, 130.

Leyden University, 145.

Lincolnshire, genius of, 49, 73-
Lombroso , 125, 226.

London, genius of, 22, 35, 41, 43, 44.
Longevity of genius, 17 1 et seq.
Louvain University, 146.

Lyell, 1 51.

MACAULAY, 54, 202.

Macdonald , A., 119, 208.

Mackintosh , 56.

Maclean , A. H. PI ., 24, 41, 91, 146.
Magjd , no.

Marandon de Monty el, no, 169.
Marlborough, 52.

Marro, 125, 128, 132, 186, 221.
Maudsley, 190, 192.

Melancholy and genius, 220 et seq.
Middlesex, genius of, 43.

Midlothian, genius of, 61.

Mill, J. S., 143.

Mitchell, Sir A., 118.

Mobius, 97.

Montague, 10.

Moll, 118.

More, Hannah, 10.

Moreau (de Tours ), 231.

Morris, W., 230.

Mothers, debt of men of genius to
their, 103.

Mothers’ age at eminent children’s
birth, 126 et seq.

Muller, Max, 97.

Munden, 214.

Murchison, 143.

Musical composers, 5 ; precocity of,
142.

Myopia and genius, 201.

NACKE, 118.

Napoleon III., 10.

National Portrait Gallery, 215.

New England and East Anglia, 50.
Neurasthenia and genius, 197.
Newton, Sir I., 49, 69, 142.
Nigrescence, index of, 21 1.
Nineteenth Century, British genius
in the, 12, 14, 33, 88, 92, 122, 150,
161, 165.

Norfolk, genius of, 39, 40.

Normans, 26.

Northamptonshire, genius of, 49.
Nottinghamshire, genius of, 49, 73.

OATES, TITUS, 5.

Odin, 91.

Ordovices, 58.

Oxford University and genius, 144
et seq.

PADUA UNIVERSITY, 145.

Papillault, 207.

Pearson , K., 106, 108, 164, 168.

Peers, hereditary, 3.

Perkins, 143.

Permewan , 200.

Pigmentation, index of, 21 1 et seq.
Pitt- Rivers, 45.

Poll-tax returns, 33.

Poets, regional distribution of, 66 ;
heredity of, 97.

Population, distribution of genius on
basis of, 33 et seq.

INDEX

299

Porter , 207.

Posthumous children, 136.

Powell , E., 33.

Precocity of genius, 136 et seq.
Priestley, 202.

Professional class element among
men of genius, 90.

Purcell, 54.

RALEIGH, 51.

R aider, A ., 115.

Ray, 151.

Reformation in England, 13.
Renaissance in England, 13, 34.
Regis , no, 169.

R eve illi-Parise , 220, 222.

Reynolds, Sir J., 52, 153.
Rheumatism and genius, 187.

Rhys, J. , 47, 59.

Ripley , 21, 46.

Roberton , 129.

Royalty, 3.

Rutland, genius of, 40, 69.

SAILORS, REGIONAL DISTRI¬
BUTION OF GREAT, 72, 213.
St. Andrew’s University, 145.

St. Patrick, 150.

Saxon counties, genius of, 43, 56.
Scientific men, regional distribution
of, 67 et seq . ; heredity of, 101 ;
pigmentation of, 213.

Scotch genius, 23 et seq. , 59 et seq. ,
66, 72.

Scott, Sir W., 138.

Seventeenth century, British genius
in, 15, 28.

Shakespeare, 54.

Shelley, 202.

Short sight and genius, 201.
Shuttleworth , 118.

Shyness and genius, 218.

Sidgwick, Mrs. H ’., 108, 1 09.

Sidney, Sir P., 154.

Siddons, 55.

Simpson , Sir J. Y., 164.

Simpson, Sir IV. G., 134.

Smart, C., 195.

Soldiers, regional distribution of
great, 71.

Somerset, genius of, 52.

Somerville, Mrs., 10.

Sorbonne, 144.

South-western focus of genius, 44,

5U 7i-

Spasmodic muscular movements, 200.
Speech defects and genius, 197 et seq.
Spencer, H., 146.

Stammering and genius, 197 et seq.
Stai'buck , 1 1 9, 128.

Sterility of men of genius, 163 et seq.
Stone, prevalence of, 187.

Stowell, Lord, 136.

Suffolk, genius of, 39, 40, 41, 50.
Sully, J., 137, 148.

Sutherland, genius of, 62.

Sydenham, 182.

TAYLOR, /., 49.

Temperament of genius, 226.
Thorndike, E. L ., 162.

Thurlow, 142.

Timidity and genius, 218.

Toulouse, no, 169.

Trade and the parentage of genius,

8 1 et seq. , 89.

Trinity College, Dublin, and genius,
144-

ULSTER, GENIUS OF, 64.
University education of men of
genius, 143 et seq.

Unskilled workers and parentage of
genius, 83.

300

INDEX.

Upper class group of men of genius,
78, 90.

Utrecht University, 145.

VARIGNY, H. BE, 206.

Voice in men of genius, high-pitched,
206.

WALL, A./., 1 1 5.

Walloon element in British genius,

27, 43-

Walpole, 50.

Watson, 183.

Wells, G. S., 1 1 9.

Wells, Si r Spencer, 183, 185.

Welsh Border, genius of, 46, 54, 70.
Welsh genius, 23 et seq., 28, 47, 5 7
et seq.

West Indian families and genius, 1 51.
Williams, H., 56.

Winter, L., 118.

Wiseman, 140.

Wives of men of genius, insanity
among, 193.

Women of genius, British, 10, 28, 38,
74, 108, 153, 157 et seq., 163, 176.
Writer’s cramp and genius, 201.
Wyllie , 198.

YEO, BURNEY, 185.

Yeomen and parentage of genius, 78.
Yoder, A. H, 109, 114, 117, 124,
128, 134.

Young, T., 54.

Youngest born children, genius in,
116 et seq.

NEW WORK BY JOHN ASHTON.

In i vol., demy 8vo, containing numerous Illustrations from old Cartoons,

Broadsheets, &c. Price 7s. 6d. net.

Gossip in the First Decade
of Victoria’s Reign.

By John Ashton, Author of “ Social Life in the Reign of Queen
Anne,” &c.

NEW WORK BY MICHAEL DAVITT.

Based upon Personal Investigations in Russia,

In 1 vol., crown 8vo, cloth. Price 5s.

Within the Pale :

The True Story of Anti-Semitic Persecutions in Russia.

By Michael Davitt, Author of “ Leaves from a Prison Diary,”
“ Life and Progress in Australasia.”

The Hearts of Men.

By H. Fielding, Author of “The Soul of a People,” &c. In
1 vol., demy 8vo. Price 10s. 6d. net. Second Edition.

The Man in the Iron Mask.

By Tighe Hopkins, Author of “An Idler in Old France,” “The
Dungeons of Old Paris,” &c. A true history of the Man in the
Iron Mask as opposed to the Popular Legend. In 1 vol., large
crown 8vo, with numerous Portraits and Plans of Prisons. Special
binding. Price 7s. 6d. net.

An Idler in Old France.

By Tighe Hopkins, Author of “The Dungeons of Old Paris,”
“Nell Haffenden,” &c. In 1 vol., crown 8vo, extra cloth.
Price 6s.

LONDON: HURST AND BLACKETT, LIMITED.

Gypsy Folk=Tales.

By Francis Hindes Groome, Author of “In Gypsy Tents,”
“Two Suffolk Friends,” &c. In I vol., demy 8vo. Price 12s.

Personal Forces of the Period.

By T. H. S. Escott, Author of “ England : Its People, Polity and
Pursuits,” “Social Transformations of the Victorian Age,” &c.
In 1 vol., large crown 8vo, extra cloth. Price 6s.

Praeraphaelite Diaries and Letters.

Containing Letters of Dante Gabriel Rossetti ; Diary of
Ford Madox Brown ; the P.R.P. Journal, by W. Rossetti.
Edited by William Michael Rossetti. In 1 vol., crown 8vo.
Illustrated. Price 6s.

The Old Court Suburb.

(1 Original Edition.) By Leigh Hunt. In 1 vol., crown 8vo,
with Frontispiece. Price 5s.

Family Romance:

Or, the Domestic Annals of the Aristocracy.

By Sir Bernard Burke, Ulster King-of-Arms. In 1 vol.,
crown 8vo, with Frontispiece. Price 5s.

The Romance of the Forum :

Or, Narratives, Scenes and Anecdotes
from Courts of Justice.

By Peter Burke, Serjeant-at-Law. In 1 vol., crown 8vo,
with Frontispiece. Price 5s.

LONDON : HURST AND BLACKETT, LIMITED.

Dr. SVEN HEDIN’S

GREAT WORK -

Central Asia
and Tibet:

TOWARDS THE HOLY CITY OF LASS A.

In 2 vols. 1,200 pages, 420 Illustrations from Drawings and
Photographs, Portrait of the Author, 8 full-page Coloured
Illustrations from Paintings, and 5 Maps.

Handsomely Bound in Cloth, Gilt Top.

PRICE:

TWO GUINEAS NET.

An Illustrated Prospectus containing Synopsis of Contents ,
&c., can be had on Application ,

LONDON: HURST AND BLACKETT, LIMITED.

THE WONDERFUL CAREER OF EBENEZER LOBB.

Related by Himself. Edited, with an Appreciation, by
Allen Upward. One Vol., crown 8vo. Price 3s. 6d.

FOLLY AND FRESH AIR.

By Eden Phillpots, Author of “The Human Boy, ” “ My
Laughing Philosopher,” &c. Illustrated by J. Leys Pethy-
bridge. One Vol., crown 8vo. Price 3s. 6d.

THE SECOND THOUGHTS OF AN IDLE FELLOW.

By Jerome K. Jerome, Author of “Three Men in a
Boat,” &c., &c. One Vol., crown 8vo. Price 3s. 6d.

THE NEW FICTION, and other Essays on Literary Subjects.

By H. D. Traill, Author of “The New Lucian,” “The Life
of Sir John Franklin,” &c. One Vol., crown 8vo. Price 6s.

LADY HAMILTON AND LORD NELSON.

By John Cordy Jeaffreson. New and Revised Edition.
Containing Additional Facts, Letters, and other Materials.
With Portrait of Lady Hamilton. One Vol., large crown 8vo,
gilt top. Price 6s.

THE REAL LORD BYRON.

By John Cordy Jeaffreson. With Portrait of Lord Byron,
by T. Phillips, R.A., engraved on steel. One Vol., crown
8vo. Price 5s.

FIFTY YEARS OF MY LIFE IN THE WORLD OF SPORT
AT HOME AND ABROAD.

By Sir John Dugdale Astley, Bart. One Vol., crown
8vo, with Portrait. Price 6s. Also in small crown 8vo,
cloth. Price 2s. 6d.

FROM YELDT CAMP FIRES. Stories of Southern Africa.

By H. A. Bryden, Author of “An Exiled Scot,” “Gun
and Camera in Southern Africa,” &c. One Vol., crown 8vo,
Price 3s. 6d.

THE KISS OF ISIS.

By Capt. Arthur Haggard, Author of “Only a Drummer
Boy,” “With Rank and File,” &c. One Vol., crown 8vo.
Price 3s. 6d.

LONDON AT THE END OF THE CENTURY.

By Arthur W. ABeckett, Author of “The Member
for Wrottenborough, ” “ The Modern Adam, ” &c. One Vol.
crown 8vo. Price 3s. 6d.

LONDON: HURST AND BLACKETT, LIMITED.

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Texts

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "A study of British genius"

See other formats